local nature partnership evaluation phase iirandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=12505_l... ·...

Local Nature Partnership Evaluation Phase II Final Report Annexes

9 February 2015

This page is intentionally blank

Local Nature Partnership Phase II Evaluation – Final Report Annexes

Local Nature Partnership Phase II EvaluationFinal Report Annexes

A report submitted by ICF

Date: 9 February 2015

Job Number 30260033

Matt Rayment

ICF Watling House

33 Cannon Street

London EC4M 5SB

T +44 (0)20 7611 1100 F +44 (0)20 3096 4800

www.icfi.com


Document Control

Document Title Local Nature Partnership Evaluation Phase II – Final Report Annexes

Job number 30260033

Prepared by Eoghan Daly, David McNeil, Rick Minter

Checked by Matt Rayment

Date 9 February 2015

This report is the copyright of the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) and has been prepared by ICF Consulting Services Ltd under contract to Defra.

ICF has used reasonable skill and care in checking the accuracy and completeness of information supplied by the client or third parties in the course of this project under which the report was produced. ICF is however unable to warrant either the accuracy or completeness of such information supplied by the client or third parties, nor that it is fit for any purpose. ICF does not accept responsibility for any legal, commercial or other consequences that may arise directly or indirectly as a result of the use by ICF of inaccurate or incomplete information supplied by the client or third parties in the course of this project or its inclusion in this project or its inclusion in this report.

The Research Briefing and full report Local Nature Partnership Evaluation Phase II by ICF are published by Defra (Defra Project Code NR0160) and are available from the Department’s Science and Research Projects Database at http://randd.defra.gov.uk. While the research was commissioned and funded by Defra the views expressed reflect the research findings and the authors’ interpretation; they do not necessarily reflect Defra policy.


Contents

Glossary .................................................................................................................... i

Annex 1 Initial evidence review ................................................................................ 2

Annex 2 LNP participation in the stakeholder consultation and thematic workshops ................................................................................................................... 4 A2.1 Stakeholder consultation ............................................................................................................ 4 A2.2 Thematic workshops .................................................................................................................. 5

Annex 3 Interview topic guides ................................................................................ 7

Annex 4 Detailed intervention logics ...................................................................... 17 A4.1 Activities and outcomes: awareness ........................................................................................ 17 A4.2 Activities and outcomes: knowledge ........................................................................................ 18 A4.3 Activities and outcomes: influence ........................................................................................... 18 A4.4 Activities and outcomes: delivery ............................................................................................. 19 A4.5 Activities and outcomes: collaboration ..................................................................................... 19

Annex 5 Findings from the stakeholder consultation .............................................. 21

Annex 6 Thematic discussion papers ...................................................................... 57

Annex 7 Survey responses: chairpersons and coordinators ................................... 126

Annex 8 Online survey questions .......................................................................... 143

Table of tables

Table A1.1 LNP implementation progress ...............................................................................................2

Table A1.2 Co-ordination and partnership working ................................................................................ 3

Table A1.3 Agendas and priorities of LNPs ............................................................................................. 3

Table A2.1 Responses to the online survey and interviews .................................................................... 4

Table A2.2 Thematic workshop attendees .............................................................................................. 6

Table A4.1 Activities and outcomes: knowledge .................................................................................... 18

Table A4.2 Activities and outcomes: influence ...................................................................................... 18

Table A4.3 Activities and outcomes: delivery ........................................................................................ 19

Table A4.4 Activities and outcomes: collaboration ............................................................................... 20

Table A5.1 LNP are working on focused and overarching priorities .................................................... 36

Table A5.2 Examples of how LNPs have raised awareness of the value and benefit of the natural environment among partners and stakeholders................................................................. 42

Table A5.3 Examples of how LNPs have enhanced expertise and data sharing about the local environment ........................................................................................................................ 43

Table A5.4 Examples of LNPs influencing the decisions of partners and stakeholders so that national priorities are supported by the activities of local stakeholders ........................................... 45

Table A5.5 Examples of LNPs contributing to the better implementation of actions that improve natural areas ........................................................................................................................ 46

Table A5.6 Examples of LNPs increasing collaboration and coordination ........................................... 47

Table A6.1 Ecosystem services in the UK, classified according to ecosystem service .......................... 59

Table A6.2 Key elements of natural capital and the potential role for LNPs ........................................ 61

Table A6.3 Summary of potential stakeholder roles in different options for biodiversity offsetting ... 79

Table A6.4 Potential role for LNPs in the development of biodiversity offset systems ....................... 80


Table A6.5 Key publications from the local authorities which participated to the biodiversity offset pilots .................................................................................................................................... 82

Table A6.6 Elements of network delivery, and the role for LNPs ......................................................... 85

Table A7.1 Q28: Please provide an estimate of how much annual funding is required to... .............. 140

Table A7.2 Q32: Until what point in time is the funding for the LNP coordinator secured? ............. 142

Table of figures

Figure A5.1 Challenges experienced by LNPs and their significance .................................................... 22

Figure A5.2 The majority of LNPs and LNP members consider funding to be a significant issue ....... 23

Figure A5.3 Funding is not secure for the majority of LNPs .................................................................. 24

Figure A5.4 The main source of LNP funding is local government, Defra delivery bodies and environmental NGOs .......................................................................................................... 26

Figure A5.5 The main sources of staff time / expertise are local government, Defra delivery bodies and environmental NGOs ........................................................................................................... 27

Figure A5.6 The main sources of other kinds of support are LEPs, community groups and education / research organisations ........................................................................................................ 28

Figure A5.7 Responses to the survey suggest the source of financing has a significant influence on LNPs’ work .......................................................................................................................... 29

Figure A5.8 LNPs have made good progress in setting up governance structures, obtaining coordinator support and setting out overall visions, and are starting to work towards delivering their vision ......................................................................................................... 30

Figure A5.9 The majority of LNPs have a chairperson, coordinator and a steering group / board in place ...................................................................................................................................... 31

Figure A5.10 LNP chairpersons and coordinators are from a wide variety of sectors, the majority of members are from the local government and environment sectors .................................. 32

Figure A5.11 Environmental organisations, Defra agencies and local government are the most engaged with LNPs ............................................................................................................................ 33

Figure A5.12 Chairs and coordinators agree that, in general, the right organisations are involved ....... 34

Figure A5.13 LNPs are working on a wide range of priorities ................................................................. 39

Figure A5.14 Outcomes of LNP activities .................................................................................................. 41

Figure A5.15 The majority of LNPs and LNP members consider that LNPs have yet to add value, but are likely to do so in the future ........................................................................................... 49

Figure A5.16 The impact of the LNP on participating organisation ........................................................ 50

Figure A5.17 Future support expected from organisations / sectors: funding ........................................ 53

Figure A5.18 Future support expected from organisations / sectors: staff time / expertise ................... 54

Figure A5.19 Future support expected from organisations / sectors: other............................................. 55

Figure A6.1 Local economies are likely to benefit from investments in natural capital ....................... 58

Figure A6.2 Processes for identifying Ecosystem Services ..................................................................... 60

Figure A6.3 Flow diagram of the different options to develop biodiversity offsets ................................ 76

Figure A6.4 Circle supporting LNPs’ potential and enhancing their mandate ..................................... 125

Figure A7.1 Q6: Which of the following sectors do you primarily represent on the LNP? (Please select the most relevant) .............................................................................................................. 126

Figure A7.2 Q7: How involved are you in the LNP? .............................................................................. 126

Figure A7.3 Q8: Please indicate how far, in your view, the LNP has progressed on the following? (Please indicate progress for each item listed below) ....................................................... 127

Figure A7.4 Q9: Please indicate which of the following are currently present in the LNP you are involved in? ........................................................................................................................ 127

Figure A7.5 Q10: Please indicate how engaged the following are in the LNP ...................................... 128


Figure A7.6 Q11: To what extent do you think that the right organisations are involved with the LNP? ............................................................................................................................................ 128

Figure A7.7 Q12: If the LNP has developed a relationship with any of the following groups / partnerships, please indicate how well that relationship is working ................................ 129

Figure A7.8 Q13: The following are priorities which some LNPs might be working on. Please score all that apply. ........................................................................................................................... 130

Figure A7.9 Q14: Please state the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. The LNP has.... ................................................................................................................... 131

Figure A7.10 Q20: To what extent do you think the achievements noted in your previous answers would have been achieved in the absence of the LNP? ..................................................... 131

Figure A7.11 Q21: To what extent has involvement in the LNP had an impact on your own organisation? ...................................................................................................................... 132

Figure A7.12 Q22: Please select the challenges that are relevant to your LNP and tell us how significant the challenges have been .................................................................................................... 133

Figure A7.13 Q24: What kind of support have you received from the following organisations / sectors (apart from the original capacity fund)? ............................................................................ 134



Figure A7.16 Q25: To what extent have the sources of funding received had an impact on the LNP’s priorities, work and / or type of achievements? The impact on the LNP’s priorities, work, and / or type of achievements has been… .......................................................................... 136

Figure A7.17 Q26: What kind of support do you anticipate you will receive from the following organisations / sectors in the future? ................................................................................ 137



Figure A7.20 Q27: To what extent is the funding obtained by the LNP... ....................................... 139

Figure A7.21 Q29: Looking into the next year and beyond, how secure is the funding for the LNP? ... 140

Figure A7.22 ...... Q30: Looking to the end of the 2014/15 financial year, is there a shortfall between the funding that is required to keep the LNP viable, and the amount of funding that has been secured? How big do you estimate this shortfall to be? .................................................... 141

Figure A7.23 Q31: Looking to the end of the 2014/15 financial year, is there a shortfall between the funding that is required to carry out the planned work of the LNP, and the amount of funding that has been secured? How big do you estimate this shortfall to be? ................ 141

Figure A7.24 Q35: Please select from the thematic discussions below, those that you would be interested to participate in. ................................................................................................ 142

Table of Boxes

Box 1 Lewes and Ouse Valley eco-nomics group 65

Box 2 North Yorkshire and York LNP 65

Box 3 Wild Anglia (Local Environment and Economic Development Toolkit) 66

Box 4 Valuing Surrey 67

Box 5 Environment Agency- Catchment Restoration Fund and Catchment Pilots 69

Box 6 Valuing natural capital- a typology of methods 70

Box 7 Local house and property prices- a driver for environmental investment? 70


Box 8 LNP as biodiversity offset broker 80

Box 9 LNP as controller or manager of the biodiversity offsetting fund 81

Box 10 Planning for connectivity: Cheshire Ecological Network 89

Box 11 Decision support systems: Trent Valley Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping 90

Box 12 Mapping actual and potential habitats: Link2Nature 91

Box 13 The West of England (Avon Wildlife Trust) LNP – obtaining funding via partnership working with the LEP

99

Box 14 North Yorkshire and York – exploring opportunities for partnership working with the health and well-being board

100

Box 15 Humber LNP – providing a niche service 100

Box 16 Wild Anglia LNP – creating a new structure - Community Interest Company 101

Box 17 Bedfordshire LNP – seeking support from local businesses 101

Box 18 Evidence from Monitoring Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) 108

Box 19 The Devon LNP 109

Box 20 Examples of successful LNP and LEP cooperation 115

Box 21 Local Environment and Economic Development (LEED) Toolkit 120

Box 22 Defra Network Offer 120

Box 23 Warwickshire Coventry and Solihull LNP Strategic Vision 124


i

Glossary

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

LBAP Local Biodiversity Action Partnership

LEP Local Enterprise Partnership

LHWB Local Health and Wellbeing Board

LNP Local Nature Partnership

LNP member

Organisation or individual involved with an LNP but not as a chairperson or coordinator.

LNP participant

Collective term used in this report to refer to any person and / or organisation involved with an LNP, for example, as a chairperson, coordinator, board member and member.

LNP stakeholder

Organisations involved with LNPs at a national level.

NEWP Natural Environment White Paper

NIA Nature Improvement Area

RDPE Rural Development Programme for England


2

Annex 1 Initial evidence review

An initial evidence review in November 2013 collected published information about LNPs and their development. The following LNP documents were reviewed:

■ Newsletters. ■ Progress reports. ■ Protocols. ■ Meeting minutes. ■ Strategies. ■ Action plans. ■ Targets. ■ Research and data. ■ Consultations. ■ LNP terms of reference. ■ LNP proposals submitted to Defra.

Table A1.1 includes the result of the evidence review related to LNP implementation progress (as at November 2013). The majority of LNPs appear to have a board or steering group in place, but delivery groups1 were less common.

Over half of the LNPs had prepared a strategy, but fewer had work plans, actions and targets, communication strategies, funding / resource plans and evaluation and monitoring plans.

A wide range of sector representatives are involved in the LNPs. Nature conservation, business and local government are the sectors most commonly engaged with LNPs. Education, health and landowners / managers appear to less commonly engaged.

Table A1.1 LNP implementation progress

Governance structure Number of LNPs

Board 29

Steering group 18

Delivery group 9

Wider forum 17

LNP plans and strategies

Strategy 25

Work plan 17

Actions and targets 9

Communication strategy 7

Funding / resource plan 0

Evaluation and monitoring plan 3

Sectors engaged with LNPs

Business 16

Civil society 10

Education 7

Health 11

Local government 17

Land owners / managers 8

1 An LNP delivery group is responsible for the delivery of LNP priorities, focusing on a particular agenda or theme. There may be more than one delivery group per LNP.


3

Governance structure Number of LNPs

Nature conservation 22

Other 9

LNP websites and documents

Table A1.2 includes the result of the evidence review related to the overlap between LNPs and the type of organisation that led the application to the capacity building fund.

The organisations that led the preparation of LNPs’ applications to the capacity building fund include local government, local Wildlife Trusts, and organisations such as biodiversity partnerships and other pre-existing partnerships.

Table A1.2 LNP overlaps, Lead fund applicants

Overlap with other LNPs

LNPs that overlap with other LNPs 22

Lead fund applicants

Local government 14

Wildlife trust 18

Other 17


Table A1.3 includes the results of the evidence review related to the agendas and priorities specified by LNPs. Much of the information about the agendas and priorities of LNPs was obtained from the proposals submitted to Defra, and may therefore reflect intentions rather than actual activities.

Table A1.3 Agendas and priorities of LNPs

Priorities Number of LNPs

Green economy 7

Green infrastructure 4

Sustainable land use 4

Biodiversity 3

Biodiversity offsets 3

Catchment management 2

Landscape scale projects 2

Health 2

Payments for ecosystem services

1

Ecological networks 1



4

Annex 2 LNP participation in the stakeholder consultation and thematic workshops

A2.1 Stakeholder consultation

Table A2.1 specifies the inputs to the stakeholder consultation received from each LNP. It indicates whether a survey response was provided by LNP chairpersons and coordinators, and whether both type of respondents completed an interview. The table also specifies the number of member responses to the survey, and the number of member interviews completed.

Table A2.1 Responses to the online survey and interviews

LNP

Stakeholder group

S I S I S I

Chairperson Coordinator Member

1. Bedfordshire ** 0 2

2. Berkshire 2 2

3. Birmingham and Black Country 0 2

4. Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes ** 3 3

5. Cheshire region 1 2

6. Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Env Partnership 0 2

7. Cumbria * 1 3

8. Devon 0 2

9. Dorset 3 2

10. Gloucestershire 0 2

11. Greater Cambridgeshire ** 0 3

12. Greater Lincolnshire 0 2

13. Greater Manchester 1 1

14. Hampshire and Isle of Wight * 0 2

15. Herefordshire *** 0 2

16. Hertfordshire 0 1

17. Hull and East Yorkshire 1 1

18. Humber Nature Partnership 2 2

19. Kent **** ** 1 4

20. Lancashire Environment Forum 0 0

21. Leicestershire *** 0 2

22. Liverpool City Region ** ** 0 1

23. London ** *** 0 0

24. Lowland Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire 1 2

25. Morecambe Bay *** 0 2

26. North Yorkshire & York 1 1

27. Northamptonshire 0 3

28. Northern Upland Chain 0 1

29. Northumberland Lowlands and Coast * 1 2

30. Oxfordshire ** *** 0 2


5

31. Peak District 0 2

32. Plymouth * *** 0 0

33. Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin 0 2

34. Somerset *** *** 0 1

35. South Pennines 0 0

36. South Yorkshire ** ** 0 1

37. Staffordshire * ** 1 1

38. Surrey 0 2

39. Sussex (E&W and Brighton & Hove) *** * 1 1

40. Tees Valley * 2 3

41. Thames Gateway *** 1 2

42. Three Rivers (Durham) ** 1 3

43. Warwickshire ** 1 2

44. West of England ** 1 1

45. Wild Anglia (Norfolk and Suffolk) 4 3

46. Wiltshire and Swindon (Link2Nature) ** 6 3

47. Worcestershire 4 2

48. Yorkshire West *** 1 1

S= Survey

I= Interview

*Position does not exist within the LNP.

**Declined to take part.

***Did not respond.

****Declined to participate as only in position a short time.

A2.2 Thematic workshops

Four thematic workshops were held, covering seven thematic issues. The workshops and the topics addressed are set out below.

■ Workshop 1: 23 June 2014

– Biodiversity offsetting: what is LNPs’ role?

– LNPs role in developing new and enhancing existing ecological networks.

■ Workshop 2: 25 June 2014

– Strengthening the LNPs’ mandate: developing a vision and role for LNPs.

– LNP Funding and Resources.

■ Workshop 3: 1 July 2014

– LNPs and LEPs: working together to protect the environment and strengthen the economy.

– Natural capital: making the economic case (& PES).

■ Workshop 4: 2 July 2014

– LNPs and the local health sector.


6

The workshops were attended by 35 participants, representing 25 LNPs. At least one person from Defra attended each workshop, and Natural England representative attended 2 workshops (Table A2.2).

Table A2.2 Thematic workshop attendees

Attendee Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 Workshop 4

LNPs

1. 3 Rivers

2. Bedfordshire

3. Berkshire

4. Berkshire

5. Bucks and MK

6. Devon

7. Dorset

8. Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

9. Hampshire & Isle of Wight

10. Herefordshire

11. Humber

12. Kent

13. Lancashire Environment Forum

14. Leicestershire

15. Lowland Derbyshire and Notts.

16. Natural Devon

17. Nature Connected - Liverpool

18. Nature Peak District

19. North Yorkshire

20. Shropshire, Telford & Wrekin LNP

21. Staffordshire

22. Surrey

23. Tees Valley

24. Wilts & Swindon LNP

25. Yorkshire West

Other

26. Defra

27. Natural England

28. Public Health England


7

Annex 3 Interview topic guides

This annex includes the topic guides used during the stakeholder interviews.

A3.1 Topic guide: chairpersons and coordinator

LNP

Name

Organisation

Role in LNP

Establishment

1. Why and how did you become involved in the LNP?

2. Would you say the LNP is well established by now? Why or why not? [prompt] ■ Have the appropriate governance structures been put in place? ■ Is there a strategy / vision? ■ Is there a plan of work? ■ Have wider communities or organisations been engaged / consulted? ■ Does the LNP have a clear idea of its role? ■ Do you think it has sufficient mandate?

Agendas / priorities of the LNPs

3. What are the priorities for the LNP and how were they established? [Prompt] ■ What organisations were involved in priority setting? ■ What has worked well / less well in setting the LNP’s priorities? ■ Do you have sufficient data/evidence to enable you to set priorities for your area?

4. Do you think the priorities are the right ones for the LNP? Why or why not?

Implementation

5. How satisfied are you with the work of the LNP to date? Why or why not?

6. What do you think is working well and why? [Prompt] ■ The types of organisations involved? ■ Relationships within the LNP? ■ Retention of the membership base? ■ Relationships with the LEP and other organisations (e.g. Defra / its delivery bodies)? ■ Time / capacity of people involved? ■ Resources? ■ The LNP’s focus / priorities? ■ The influence/status/credibility that the LNP has?

7. What do you think is working less well and why? [Prompt] ■ The types of organisations involved? ■ Relationships within the LNP?


8

9. Does the source of LNP financing have an impact on its priorities and modes of working? In what way?

10. Does the LNP boundary overlap with the boundary of other LNPs, more than one Local Authority, or more than one Local Enterprise Partnership?

If yes, what are the effects of this overlap?

■ Retention of the membership base? ■ Relationships with the LEP and other organisations (e.g. Defra / its delivery bodies)? ■ Time / capacity of people involved? ■ Resources? ■ The LNP’s focus / priorities? ■ The influence/status/credibility that the LNP has?

8 Which organisations have the most influence in the LNP or the most significant input into the LNP’s work? What impact does this have on the LNP’s work? [Prompt] ■ Is the driving force behind much of the LNPs work:

– The chairperson? – A small number of stakeholders / partners? – A large number of stakeholders / partners?

Achievements

11. Can you talk us through what have been the impacts or achievements of the LNP to date, using examples wherever possible? [Prompt] ■ Raising awareness? If so, on what (e.g. value of environment, importance of green economy, role of

environment in planning processes, role of environment in supporting people’s health and well-being, importance of ecosystems approach and landscape scale action)?

■ Improved knowledge sharing and use of data? ■ Influencing decision makers? ■ Delivery of actions or initiatives? (e.g. either new, or improved or better aligned?) ■ Better collaboration / coordination?

12. Is the LNP contributing to Biodiversity 2020 outcomes? What in particular are you doing? [That is, has the LNP contributed to any of the priority areas included in ‘Biodiversity 2020: a strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services’. The priority areas are: ■ A more integrated large-scale approach to conservation on land and at sea. ■ Putting people at the heart of biodiversity policy. ■ Reducing environmental pressures. ■ Improving our knowledge.] [Prompt] ■ Is this an influencing role or a delivery role? ■ Which outcomes are you contributing to? ■ What is preventing you doing something? ■ What would help you to contribute more?

13. Overall, is the LNP making a difference? In what way?


9

14. What has the LNP been most successful at doing? Why? [Prompt] ■ Raising awareness? ■ Improved knowledge sharing and use of data? ■ Influencing decision makers? ■ Delivery of actions or initiatives? (e.g. either new, or improved?) ■ Better collaboration / coordination?

15. What factors have helped the LNP to deliver these impacts / achievements?

16. What factors have made it more difficult for the LNP to have an impact?

17. What additional support would help to increase the LNP’s impact?

18. To what extent do you think the various impacts or achievements we’ve discussed would have occurred in the absence of the LNP?

19. To what extent do the people involved with the LNP have the power to make decisions and influence the agendas and priorities of organisations in other sectors?

20. What impact has being part of the LNP had on you or your organisation? [prompt] ■ Increased awareness ■ Increased knowledge ■ Increased influence ■ Better relationships / more collaboration and coordination ■ Changed priorities ■ New work ■ Any other way

Future role

21. Looking to the future, what do you see the LNP’s role and impact being? [prompt] ■ What additional impact could the LNP potentially have? ■ What would be needed for this impact to be realised? ■ How long do you think it will take for the LNP to make a real difference?

22. How secure is the LNP’s future? [prompt] ■ Does it have enough traction / status? ■ Is there enough funding? ■ Will people / organisations continue to be involved?

23. If you could change one thing to improve the LNP’s performance, what would it be?

24. Have you thought about how the LNPs performance and impacts could be evaluated?

Other


10

A3.2 Topic guide: members

25. Is there anything else you’d like to add or discuss?

Thematic learning

26. In a later stage of the research, we will work with LNPs for more in-depth learning and evaluation on particular themes that are of most interest to LNPs. This thematic learning will aim to help the LNPs to explore issues of shared interest and to help them to monitor and evidence their progress and impact.

What kind of issues or topics do you think it would be most useful to discuss?

[prompt if necessary] ■ Particular environmental agendas? ■ Wider policy agendas? ■ Aspects related to working with specific organisations / groups? ■ General issues challenges? Full list below Working on particular natural environment agendas/ themes:

a. Payments for Ecosystem Services b. Catchment management c. Ecological networks, including identifying local NIAs d. Biodiversity offsetting e. Green infrastructure f. Public access to the countryside, nature and green space

Influencing wider policy agendas: g. Sustainable land use, including the planning system h. Health and well-being i. Green economy j. LEPS European Structural and Investment Funds strategic economic plans

Working with particular partner organisations/ groups: k. LEPs l. Health and Well-being Boards m. Farmers and land managers n. Local Authorities

General issues and challenges: o. Funding p. Long term sustainability (including sustaining membership) q. Partnership working – within the LNP r. Partnership working – outside of the LNP s. Coordination between landscape scale and other similar initiatives t. Developing and using evidence u. Evaluating progress and evidencing impact v. Processes and methods for learning and sharing best practice across LNPs

LNP

Name

Organisation

Role in LNP

Establishment

1. Why and how did you become involved in the LNP?

2. Would you say the LNP is well established by now? Why or why not? [prompt] ■ Have the appropriate governance structures been put in place? ■ Is there a strategy / vision?


11

■ Is there a plan of work? ■ Have wider communities or organisations been engaged / consulted? ■ Does the LNP have a clear idea of its role? ■ Do you think the LNP has sufficient mandate?

3. What progress has the LNP made in the last 12 months?


4. Do you think the priorities that have been selected for the LNP are the right ones? Why or why not?

Implementation

5. How involved are you with the work of the LNP? [prompt] ■ What role have you played in the various aspects?(e.g. in setting the priorities, etc) ■ What organisations / stakeholders have you engaged with the most? Why? ■ Do you have sufficient data/evidence to enable you to set priorities for your area?

6 How satisfied are you with the work of the LNP to date? Why or why not?

7 How satisfied are you with your role in the LNP? Why or why not? [prompt] ■ Do you feel like your contributions are valued / taken on board? ■ Do you feel like you have sufficient opportunities to contribute? ■ Is the pace right for you?

8 What do you think is working well and why? [Prompt] ■ The types of organisations involved? ■ Relationships within the LNP – e.g. how well they communicate / coordinate with each other? ■ Retention of the membership base? ■ Relationships with the LEP and other organisations (e.g. Defra / its delivery bodies)? ■ Time / capacity of people involved? ■ Resources? ■ The LNP’s focus / priorities? ■ The influence/status/credibility that the LNP has?

9 What do you think is working less well and why? [Prompt] ■ The types of organisations involved? ■ Relationships within the LNP ■ Retention of the membership base? ■ Relationships with the LEP and other organisations (e.g. Defra / its delivery bodies)? ■ Time / capacity of people involved? ■ Resources? ■ The LNP’s focus / priorities? ■ The influence/status/credibility that the LNP has?

1 Which organisations have the most influence in the LNP or the most significant input into the LNP’s work? What impact does this have on the LNP’s work?


12

11. Does the source of LNP financing have an impact on its priorities and modes of working? In what way?

12. Does the LNP boundary overlap with the boundary of other LNPs, more than one Local Authority, or more than one Local Enterprise Partnership?

If yes, what are the effects of this overlap?

[Prompt] ■ Is the driving force behind much of the LNPs work:

– The chairperson? – A small number of stakeholders / partners? – A large number of stakeholders / partners?

Achievements

13. Can you talk us through what have been the impacts or achievements of the LNP to date, using examples wherever possible? [Prompt] ■ Raising awareness? If so, on what (e.g. value of environment, importance of green

economy, role of environment in planning processes, role of environment in supporting people’s health and well-being, importance of ecosystems approach and landscape scale action)?

■ Improved knowledge sharing and use of data? ■ Influencing decision makers? ■ Delivery of actions or initiatives? (e.g. either new, or improved, or better aligned?) ■ Better collaboration / coordination?

14. Is the LNP contributing to Biodiversity 2020 outcomes? What in particular are you doing? [That is, has the LNP contributed to any of the priority areas included in ‘Biodiversity 2020: a strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services’. The priority areas are: ■ A more integrated large-scale approach to conservation on land and at sea. ■ Putting people at the heart of biodiversity policy. ■ Reducing environmental pressures. ■ Improving our knowledge.] [Prompt] ■ Is this an influencing role or a delivery role? ■ Which outcomes are you contributing to? ■ What is preventing you doing something? ■ What would help you to contribute more?

15. Overall, is the LNP making a difference? In what way?

16. What has the LNP been most successful at doing? Why? [Prompt] ■ Raising awareness? ■ Improved knowledge sharing and use of data? ■ Influencing decision makers? ■ Delivery of actions or initiatives? (e.g. either new, or improved?) ■ Better collaboration / coordination?

17. What factors have helped the LNP to deliver these impacts / achievements?


13

18. What factors have made it more difficult for the LNP to have an impact?

19. What additional support would help to increase the LNP’s impact?

20. To what extent do you think the various impacts or achievements we’ve discussed would have occurred in the absence of the LNP?

21. To what extent do the people involved with the LNP have the power to make decisions and influence the agendas and priorities of organisations in other sectors?

22. What impact has being part of the LNP had on you or your organisation? [prompt] ■ Increased awareness ■ Increased knowledge ■ Increased influence ■ Better relationships / more collaboration and coordination ■ Secured better / additional resources ■ Changed priorities ■ New work ■ Any other way

Future role

23. Looking to the future, what do you see the LNP’s role and impact being? [prompt] ■ What additional impact could the LNP potentially have? ■ What would be needed for this impact to be realised? ■ How long do you think it will take for the LNP to make a real difference?

24. Does the LNP have any specific initiatives planned for 2014? If so, where are these initiatives expected to take place?

25. How secure would you say the LNP’s future is? [prompt] ■ Does it have enough traction / status? ■ Is there enough funding? ■ Will people / organisations continue to be involved?

26. If you could change one thing to improve the LNP’s performance, what would it be?

Other

27. Is there anything else you would like to add or discuss?

Thematic learning

28. In a later stage of the research, we will work with LNPs for more in-depth learning and evaluation on particular themes that are of most interest to LNPs. This thematic learning will aim to help the LNPs to explore issues of shared interest and to help them to monitor and evidence their progress and impact.


14

A3.3 Topic guide: wider stakeholders

What kind of issues or topics do you think it would be most useful to discuss?

[prompt if necessary] ■ Particular environmental agendas? ■ Wider policy agendas? ■ Aspects related to working with specific organisations / groups? ■ General issues challenges? Full list below Working on particular natural environment agendas/ themes:

a. Payments for Ecosystem Services b. Catchment management c. Ecological networks, including identifying local NIAs d. Biodiversity offsetting e. Green infrastructure f. Public access to the countryside, nature and green space

Influencing wider policy agendas: g. Sustainable land use, including the planning system h. Health and well-being i. Green economy j. LEPS European Structural and Investment Funds strategic economic plans

Working with particular partner organisations/ groups: k. LEPs l. Health and Well-being Boards m. Farmers and land managers n. Local Authorities

General issues and challenges: o. Funding p. Long term sustainability (including sustaining membership) q. Partnership working – within the LNP r. Partnership working – outside of the LNP s. Coordination between landscape scale and other similar initiatives t. Developing and using evidence u. Evaluating progress and evidencing impact v. Processes and methods for learning and sharing best practice across LNPs

Name

Organisation

Establishment

1. Would you say LNPs are well established by now? Why or why not?


2. Do you think LNPs are focusing on the right priorities? If not, what do you think they should be focusing on?

Implementation

3. What do you think of the work of LNPs to date? Do you think they are doing well?

4. What do you think is working well and why? [Prompt] ■ The types of organisations involved? ■ Relationships within the LNP – e.g. how well they communicate / coordinate with each other? ■ Retention of the membership base?


15

■ Relationships with the LNP and other organisations (e.g. Defra / its delivery bodies)? ■ Time / capacity of people involved? ■ Resources? ■ The LNP’s focus / priorities? ■ The influence/status/credibility that the LNP has?

5. What do you think is working less well and why? [Prompt] ■ The types of organisations involved? ■ Relationships within the LNP? ■ Retention of the membership base? ■ Relationships with the LNP and other organisations (e.g. Defra / its delivery bodies)? ■ Time / capacity of people involved? ■ Resources? ■ The LNP’s focus / priorities? ■ The influence/status/credibility that the LNP has?

Achievements

6. What do you think have been the impacts or achievements of LNPs to date? Please use examples wherever possible. [Prompt] ■ Raising awareness? If so, on what (e.g. value of environment, importance of green economy, role of

environment in planning processes, role of environment in supporting people’s health and well-being, importance of ecosystems approach and landscape scale action)?

■ Improved knowledge sharing and use of data? ■ Influencing decision makers? ■ Delivery of actions or initiatives? (e.g. either new, or improved, or better aligned?) ■ Better collaboration / coordination?

7.

8. Are LNPs contributing to Biodiversity 2020 outcomes? [That is, has the LNP contributed to any of the priority areas included in ‘Biodiversity 2020: a strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services’. The priority areas are: ■ A more integrated large-scale approach to conservation on land and at sea. ■ Putting people at the heart of biodiversity policy. ■ Reducing environmental pressures. ■ Improving our knowledge.] [Prompt] ■ Is this an influencing role or a delivery role? ■ Which outcomes are you contributing to? ■ What is preventing you doing something? ■ What would help you to contribute more?

9. Overall, are LNPs making a difference? In what way?

10. What do you think LNPs have been most successful at doing? Why? [Prompt] ■ Raising awareness? ■ Improved knowledge sharing and use of data? ■ Influencing decision makers? ■ Delivery of actions or initiatives? (e.g. either new, or improved?) ■ Better collaboration / coordination?


16

11. What factors have helped LNPs to deliver these impacts / achievements?

12. What factors have made it more difficult for LNPs to have an impact?

13. To what extent do you think the various impacts or achievements would have occurred in the absence of LNPs?

14. To what extent do the people involved with LNPs have the power to make decisions and influence the agendas and priorities of organisations in other sectors?

15. Have LNPs had any impact on you or your organisation? Please use examples where possible [prompt] ■ Increased awareness ■ Increased knowledge ■ Increased influence ■ Better relationships / more collaboration and coordination ■ Secured better / additional resources ■ Changed priorities ■ New work

Future role

16. Looking to the future, what do you see LNPs’ role and impact being? [prompt] ■ What additional impact could LNPs potentially have? ■ What would be needed for this impact to be realised? ■ How long do you think it will take for the LNP to make a real difference?

17. How secure would you say is the future of LNPs? [prompt] ■ Do they have enough traction / status? ■ Is there enough funding? ■ Will people / organisations continue to be involved?

18. If you could change one thing to improve the performance of LNPs, what would it be?

Other

19. Is there anything else you would like to add or discuss?


17

Annex 4 Detailed intervention logics

In addition to the overall intervention logic, more detailed intervention logics were prepared for each of the five LNP outcomes:

■ Awareness: raised awareness of the value and benefit of the natural environment amongst partners and stakeholders.

■ Knowledge: enhanced expertise and data sharing about the local environment amongst partners, stakeholders, and the public.

■ Influence: influence on the decisions of partners and stakeholders so that national priorities as included in the Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) are supported by the activities of local stakeholders.

■ Delivery: better implementation of actions that promote improvement of natural areas, some of which may obtain new sources of funding.

■ Collaboration: improved collaboration and coordination among local organisations, and between local and national organisations.

The detailed intervention logics were based on the LNP activities and agendas and priorities identified during the evidence review. The five outcomes identified aim to capture what the LNPs are trying to achieve. It was possible to use the detailed intervention logics, supplemented by the information obtained during the stakeholder consultation, to compare the various actions that LNPs are undertaking to deliver their outcomes.

A4.1 Activities and outcomes: awareness

LNPs are expected to increase awareness among partners and stakeholders about the value and benefit of the natural environment to, for example, local health, the green economy and sustainable land management. Table A4.1 includes awareness-raising LNP activities and outcomes identified during evidence review.

The actions listed include LNP participants producing documents and publicity material, contributing and accessing information related to local natural environment priorities and needs, and providing advice and expertise in relation to natural environment priorities. In addition to raising awareness about local issues, the LNP will bring organisations together from across a range of sectors and help to identify opportunities for collaboration and joint-working. Such actions are expected to lead to the incorporation of the value of the natural environment in decision-making and priority setting by LNP partners and stakeholders.

Table A4.1 Activities and outcomes: awareness

Activities Outcomes

■ Establishing membership and governance structures, and producing documents and publicity material

■ Engaging and consulting with wider stakeholders, partnerships and communities (e.g. other LNPs, Total Environment Initiatives, Catchment Pathfinders and local community groups)

■ Raising awareness about policies and initiatives, and advocating for the natural environment

■ Providing advice and expertise on the value of the natural environment

■ Engaging with LEPs, HWBs and Las

■ AWARENESS: raised awareness of the value and benefit of the natural environment amongst partners and stakeholders

■ Increased awareness of sustainable land use management and the protection and improvement of the natural environment (e.g. through the planning system)

■ Increased awareness of the value of the natural environment in economic growth

■ Increased awareness of the value to public health and wellbeing of connecting people with the natural environment


18

A4.2 Activities and outcomes: knowledge

LNPs may increase participants’ access to the data, research, information and tools necessary to enhance and protect the natural environment. LNPs may also interpret natural environment data to facilitate its use by other stakeholders and sectors. Table A4.2 includes knowledge-raising activities and outcomes identified during the evidence review.

The activities identified involve LNP participants providing access to data and information about the local environment, and also providing information about existing local and national natural environment activities and initiatives. Providing access to information may enable LNP participants will take better informed decisions with respect to the natural environment, helping to address short- and long-term environmental pressures and needs in local areas.

Table A4.2 Activities and outcomes: knowledge

Activities Outcomes

■ Providing access to, and disseminating, research, data, inventories about the natural environment.

■ Providing access to knowledge on sustainable land management, ecological networks, local conservation priorities, green economy, and local engagement with the natural environment.

■ Managing data and contributing to information systems

■ Collecting and collating data from partners

■ Interpretation of natural environment data by LNPs for use by other stakeholders and sectors

■ Developing an overview of the range of activities and partnerships concerned with the sustainable management of the natural environment

■ Taking into account, and building on, National Character Area profiles

KNOWLEDGE: enhanced expertise and data sharing about the local environment among partners, stakeholders, and the public

■ Enhanced evidence of local natural environmental priorities

■ Improved information sharing among partners and stakeholders

■ Stakeholders and partners work is better informed by the best available information and data

■ Identification of opportunities to improve the natural environment, strengthen the green economy and enhance connections between people and nature

A4.3 Activities and outcomes: influence

LNPs may influence participants’ decisions with respect to the priorities set out in the Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) and local natural environment priorities and issues, and by doing so, increase the likelihood that NEWP priorities will be reflected in local activities and initiatives, for example local plans and LEP agendas. Table A4.3 includes influencing-related activities and outcomes identified during the evidence review.

The activities identified include promoting coordination between LNP participants, and the development of shared strategic priorities and actions. By working together to develop a common vision and shared priorities, LNPs will potentially deliver outcomes which integrate economic, social and environmental needs, and also improve the alignment of local priorities with national priorities related to the environment.

Table A4.3 Activities and outcomes: influence

Activities Outcomes

■ Identifying linkages between the natural environment and other local agendas, and working to integrate environment into those agendas

■ Engaging and consulting with wider stakeholders, partnerships and communities (e.g. other LNPs, Total Environment Initiatives, Catchment

INFLUENCE: influence on the decisions of partners and stakeholders so that national priorities (NEWP) are supported by the activities of local stakeholders

■ Partners and stakeholders are more focused on outcomes that integrate economic, social and environmental needs


19

Pathfinders and local community groups)

■ Engaging with local and national decision makers

■ Contributing to local plans and strategies

■ LNPs inform local priority setting by Defra delivery bodies

■ Defra delivery bodies have a more informed view of local priorities and needs

■ The natural environment is recognised and better taken account of in local economic plans, public health strategies and local plans

■ Short- and long-term environmental pressures and needs of local areas taken into account in decision-making

■ Recognition of the multi-functionality of natural areas in decision-making

A4.4 Activities and outcomes: delivery

LNPs may implement initiatives that improve the local natural environment, or improve delivery by taking steps to ensure that existing initiatives are better informed, better targeted, better co-ordinated and/or better resourced. Table A4.4 includes implementation-related activities and outcomes identified during the evidence review.

Activities such as accessing opportunities for funding and joint projects and trialling new approaches may help LNP participants to enhance existing, or implement new, initiatives and schemes. These activities could also contribute to the local delivery of NEWP priorities.

Table A4.4 Activities and outcomes: delivery

Activities Outcomes

■ Engaging and consulting with wider stakeholders, partnerships and communities (e.g. other LNPs, Total Environment Initiatives, Catchment Pathfinders and local community groups)

■ Trialling new approaches (e.g. agri-environment schemes and payments for ecosystem services)

■ Guiding existing initiatives that address local natural environment priorities

■ Scaling up activities to protect and enhance the natural environment by levering additional resources

DELIVERY: implementation of actions that promote improvement of natural areas, some of which may obtain new sources of funding.

■ New approaches to natural environmental management are demonstrated

■ Existing initiatives are more effective because they are better targeted at local priorities

■ Enhanced experience of delivering landscape scale initiatives

■ Demonstration of a strategic approach to managing the local natural environment

■ Larger and more coherent initiatives that integrate natural environmental priorities

A4.5 Activities and outcomes: collaboration

LNPs may increase collaboration and coordination between local organisations, and between local and national organisations, with respect to enhancing and protecting the natural environment. By fostering a joined-up approach, LNPs may encourage organisations to work together when preparing plans and strategies and incorporate natural environment needs and priorities into their decision-making. Table A4.5 includes collaboration-related activities and outcomes identified during the evidence review.

The activities identified include coordinating local economic plans, public health strategies and local plans with local natural environment priorities. Collaborating on a shared understanding of the needs of the local natural environment, and coordinating strategic plans to address local challenges and opportunities, should result in organisations from different sectors working together to enhance and protect the natural environment.


20

Table A4.5 Activities and outcomes: collaboration

Activities Outcomes

■ Coordinating local economic plans, public health strategies and local plans with local natural environment priorities

■ Taking a strategic view of local challenges and opportunities

■ Production of a shared strategic vision and set of local priorities and actions for the local natural environment at a landscape scale

■ Promoting strategic coordination between partners

COLLABORATION: improved collaboration and coordination among local organisations, and between local and national organisations

■ Initiatives and schemes that involve organisations from a wide range of sectors.

■ Joint funding applications, by organisations from a diversity of sectors, for initiatives to improve the natural environment

■ Linkages between the natural environment, social and economic initiatives are identified, and schemes are better co-ordinated

■ Better co-ordination of natural environmental actions with other initiatives

■ A wider range of sectors are engaged in natural environmental actions


21

Annex 5 Findings from the stakeholder consultation

A5.1 Inputs

This section discusses LNP inputs - the funding and resources that LNPs require to undertake their activities.

A5.1.1 Funding and resources

The majority of LNPs are encountering considerable challenges with two closely related issues: resources, and capacity and time constraints (Figure A5.1). Significant or very significant challenges associated with finding funding for LNP work were encountered by 33 of 35 responding LNPs. Almost all LNPs responding, 34 of 35, encountered significant or very significant challenges associated with capacity or time constraints. The figures for LNP members are relatively similar; 38 of 40 responding LNPs consider funding to be a significant or very significant challenge, and 36 of 40 consider capacity and time constraints a significant or very significant challenge.

Although many LNPs have managed to secure a funded coordinator on at least a part-time basis, many others have not. Often the individuals acting as coordinators are performing the role on a voluntary basis in addition to a full-time job. LNPs without adequate coordinator support reported that it is extremely difficult to maintain the momentum of the LNP. Many expressed doubts that, without the support of a dedicated coordinator, the LNP would continue to make progress. That is, the LNP would not progress beyond the identification of priorities and the preparation of a strategy to a stage where it can effect change. Some chairs and coordinators expressed concerns that LNPs would lose senior level support and engagement if they did not start to have an impact. These respondents were concerned that it would become difficult for senior individuals to justify continued support for LNPs if LNPs were not able to move beyond strategizing and towards making an impact. This issue was discussed during the thematic workshops. LNPs considered that LNPs without demonstrable achievements are at risk of losing the buy-in and support currently provided by senior appointments and supporters. It was felt that if LNPs did not start having an impact locally, for example, by helping to coordinate planning and decision-making among LNP members, would lose whatever credibility they currently have.

The lack of resources has, in some cases, prevented LNPs commissioning or identifying evidence necessary to justify a particular initiative. For example, one LNP discussed the difficulty of influencing LEP economic strategies without the evidence necessary to link improvements to the natural environment with positive economic outcomes.


22

Figure A5.1 Challenges experienced by LNPs and their significance

Q22: Please select the challenges that are relevant to your LNP and tell us how significant the challenges have been

N = 35 LNPs

The figure is based on LNP chairpersons’ and coordinators’ survey responses. A response was provided by chairpersons and / or coordinators for 35 LNPs.

29

26

16

10

9

8

7

5

3

1

4

8

14

16

16

14

15

14

16

2

2

8

6

10

12

13

13

1

3

1

3

3

1

2

3

0

34

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Finding funding for LNP work

Capacity and time constraints

Establishing links with Local Enterprise Partnerships

Making a connection to Health and Wellbeing Boards orPublic Health sector

Getting the right people involved with the right skills and/orexpertise

Engaging senior local government officers and/or electedmembers

Establishing connections with the farmers, land ownersand/or land managers

Identifying the right priorities to focus on

Establishing effective work and collaboration betweenpartners in the LNP

Other

Number of LNPs

LNPs

Very significant Significant Not very significant Not at all significant Option not selected


23

N = 40 LNP members

The figure is based on LNP member survey responses. A response was provided by 40 LNP members.

Two categories of resources were identified during interviews: ‘core’ resources for the administrative and secretariat functions necessary to sustain an LNP, and ‘project’ resources necessary to deliver initiatives or actions. Core resources were identified as significantly more important than project resources. Respondents commented that without core resources it is much more difficult, if not impossible, for LNPs to identify and pursue project resources. LNP participants estimated that, as a minimum, LNPs require at least one dedicated full time position to progress the LNP and maintain momentum between meetings. LNP participants emphasised that there is no shortage of expertise or enthusiasm, but that the reliance on voluntary contributions of time and resources make it difficult for LNPs to make progress in good time. The lack of dedicated coordinator resource available slows everything down and can reduce the extent to which LNPs can engage with other organisations. Engaging with other organisations requires that LNPs have the capacity to follow-up agreed actions and maintain support for joint initiatives. A significant majority of LNPs commented that the uncertainty attached to their funding and resources constrains their ability to engage with others; LNPs cannot be sure that voluntary contributions will be maintained and do not want to commit to actions they may not be able to deliver.

Figure A5.2 shows that LNPs consider funding to be inadequate for their needs, not suitable for the priorities being addressed, and unsustainable over time. LNPs reported that they are struggling to maintain basic core services, such as a coordinator / secretariat, which is compromising their ability to obtain funding and support to sustain LNP activities. That is, the lack of funding is compromising LNPs’ ability to identify and secure sources of funding.

Figure A5.2 The majority of LNPs and LNP members consider funding to be a significant issue

Q27: To what extent is the funding obtained by the LNP…

29

22

17

11

9

8

7

4

4

1

9

14

8

18

14

12

19

12

17

1

2

10

9

12

13

8

21

10

2

2

0

1

3

1

2

3

2

3

5

6

2

6

39

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45




Getting the right people involved with the right skills and/orexpertise

Engaging senior local government officers and/or electedmembers

Making a connection to Health and Wellbeing Boards orPublic Health sector


Establishing effective work and collaboration betweenpartners in the LNP

Establishing connections with the farmers, land ownersand/or land managers

Other

Number of LNPs

LNP Members



24

N = 35 LNPs


Although some LNPs have obtained some funding almost a third of them (10 of 35) stated that funding is not at all secure post-2013, while 15 of 35 stated that funding is not very secure post-2013 (Figure A5.3). Only one LNP thought that funding is very secure beyond 2014.

Figure A5.3 Funding is not secure for the majority of LNPs

Q29: Looking into the next year and beyond, how secure is the funding for the LNP?

N = 35 LNPs


85

2

9

2 2

12 16

14

8

15

7

13 1217 15

12

22

2 2 27

6

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Adequate for itsneeds

Suitable for prioritiesbeing addressing

Sustainable overtime




LNP Member

LNPs LNP Members

Completely Somewhat Not very Not at all No option selected

Very secure, 1

Somewhat secure, 9

Not very secure, 15

Not at all secure, 10


25

Another factor potentially undermining the security of LNPs, which is related to a lack of funding, is the risk that participating individuals and organisations could become dis-interested if the LNP does not start having an impact. LNPs identified the next 12 months as a crucial time. The previous 12 – 18 months have been spent establishing LNPs; the next 12 will be a test of whether the LNP can start to make a difference. Respondents expressed concerns that without any tangible impacts the senior decision-makers on LNP boards could find it difficult to justify their continued involvement. Without senior-level support LNPs will not have the credibility to provide a strategic influencing role.

Respondents also highlighted that the dedication and enthusiasm of LNP participants needs to be maintained if LNPs are to start having an impact. The LNPs stated that this will only be maintained if there is continued support / promotion of LNPs by Defra and across government, for example by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Defra’s support helps to maintain the profile of LNPs, strengthens their credibility, and ensures that LNPs have the status to engage with other organisations.

LNP participants provided examples of how the lack of funding and capacity is undermining the credibility of the partnerships. In one case, an LNP had established a relationship with the local authority and agreed to provide input to local plans and local plan evidence documents. When the time came to provide input, the LNP did not have the resources available to provide input or even provide access to its members. The LNP member providing the example considered that missing the opportunity to influence local plans has undermined the credibility of the LNP in the eyes of the local authority, and will make it more difficult for the LNP to have an impact in the future.

LNPs may also compete with other local priorities for the time and resources provided by their members. One LNP member stated that their involvement in the LNP had reduced the time available for them to work on local biodiversity issues. The LNP member providing the example was helping to coordinate the LNP at the expense of other work related to local biodiversity improvements.

LNPs’ impact, that is their ability to effect change, is constrained by the limited funding available. Respondents commented that searching for funding occupies a significant amount of board members’ energy and time, reducing their capacity and ability to deliver on the LNP’s priorities. Accessing grant funding also takes time, slowing LNP progress and potentially undermining the ability of LNPs to keep board members interested and involved.

A5.1.2 LNPs have obtained resources from a variety of sources

Figure A5.4, Figure A5.5, and Figure A5.6 describe the types of resources provided to LNPs by a variety of organisations / sectors. The main sources of LNP funding and staff time / expertise are local government, Defra delivery bodies and environmental NGOs. During interviews with coordinators and chairpersons, local government and local Wildlife Trusts were cited as the primary funders of LNPs. Defra delivery bodies, the Environment Agency and Natural England, were identified as sources of funding for ongoing LNP activities but much less frequently than local government and local Wildlife Trusts2.

LEPs, community groups and education / research organisations were identified as the main sources of other forms of support. Examples of other forms of support include assistance in preparing bids for EU funds, development of logos and branded material, and provision of meeting rooms and facilities.

2 Figure A5.4 indicates that 16 of 35 LNPs have received funding from Defra delivery bodies. The interviews suggest that much fewer than 16 received funding from Defra delivery bodies for ongoing LNP activities. The 16 LNPs Figure A5.4 may relate to the seed funding provided to initiate the LNP programme.


26

Figure A5.4 The main source of LNP funding is local government, Defra delivery bodies and environmental NGOs

Q24: What kind of support have you received from the following organisations / sectors (apart from the original capacity fund)?

N = 35 LNPs


19

16

13

4

4

2

1

1

1

1

0 5 10 15 20

Local government

Defra delivery bodies (eg Natural England)

Environmental NGOs

Individual businesses or business representatives

Heritage Lottery Fund

Education/Research

Health/public health

LEPs

Big Lottery Fund

Other (inc other European or government funds)

No. of LNPs

Funding


27

Figure A5.5 The main sources of staff time / expertise are local government, Defra delivery bodies and environmental NGOs


N = 35 LNPs


32

31

31

25

21

20

20

20

12

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Local government


Environmental NGOs

Farmers/land managers/land owners



Education/Research

Community groups

LEPs


No. of LNPs

Staff time


28

Figure A5.6 The main sources of other kinds of support are LEPs, community groups and education / research organisations


N = 35 LNPs


The source of LNP financing impacted LNP’s priorities and achievements

89 of 149 LNP respondents consider that the source of funding received by LNPs has a significant or very significant impact on LNPs’ priorities, work and / or type of achievements (Figure A5.7). LNP members consider that the source of funding has less of an impact on LNPs’ work; only 9 of 40 LNP members think funding has had a significant impact while 13 of 40 think it has not been very significant.

The most commonly identified impact was an influence on LNPs’ priorities, but the majority of respondents emphasised that any impact was minimal and benign. For example, one respondent described how an LNP board is considering funding the LNP through carbon offsetting programmes, something that several board members are familiar with. The respondent considered that it is likely that the LNP will become more focused on activities related to carbon offsetting as a result, but that this is not a problem as the LNP should work on whatever activities it can sustain. Another example was provided by an LNP member about how the organisation providing the coordinator to sustain the LNP has influenced the focus and direction of the LNPs work. The LNP member did not think that the influence was negative, and considered it to be inevitable that organisations providing funding or resources will have some sort of influence.

During the interviews a majority of LNP participants (140 of 149) identified the lack of available funding as the most significant influence on LNPs’ work and priorities. The majority of LNP funding has been received from local government, Defra delivery bodies and environmental NGOs (Figure A5.4), suggesting that LNPs are more likely to be focused on the interests of these three types of organisations. During the interviews a limited number of respondents expressed some frustration at LNPs’ lack of focus on economic and health priorities. However, the majority of interviewees are broadly content with LNP priorities and indicated that priorities have widespread support among board and wider members.

7

7

4

3

3

3

2

2

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

LEPs

Community groups

Education/Research

Environmental NGOs



Local government



No. of LNPs

Other


29

During the interviews the local Wildlife Trusts and local government were identified as the organisations with the most significant influence on the work of LNPs, but respondents tended to argue that this influence is generally benign as LNP boards are doing a good job of balancing the inputs of all members.

Figure A5.7 Responses to the survey suggest the source of financing has a significant influence on LNPs’ work

Q25: To what extent have the sources of funding received had an impact on the LNP’s priorities, work and / or type of achievements?

The impact on the LNP’s priorities, work and / or type of achievements has been…

N = 35 LNPs N = 40 LNP members



A5.2 Activities

This section discusses the stage of development reached by LNPs, LNP partnership working and engagement, and the priorities LNPs are working on.

A5.2.1 LNPs have reached varying levels of development

LNPs have reached various stages in their development. LNPs that are more developed have started to identify and consider specific actions and initiatives to deliver on agreed goals and strategies, while those that are less developed are still reviewing priorities and preparing strategy documents (Figure A5.8).

Very significant,

16

Significant, 5

Not very significant, 7

Don’t know / not sure ,

2

No option selected, 5

LNPs

Very significant,

9

Significant, 8

Not very significant,

13

Don’t know / not sure ,

3 No option selected, 7

LNP members


30

Figure A5.8 LNPs have made good progress in setting up governance structures, obtaining coordinator support and setting out overall visions, and are starting to work towards delivering their vision

Q8: …please indicate how far, in your view, the LNP has progressed on the following? (Please indicate progress for each item listed below)

N = 35 LNPs


25

1917

9 86 5

3 2

10

7

14

9

14 17

15

6 7

3

4

6

10 8

11

1412

5

7

1 4

1

2

9

1

3

22

10

4

1 1 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Establishmentof governance

strutures

Coordinatorand or admin

support

Setting outoverall vision

Gathering data Identifyingplaces

Initialconsultation

Developingplan of work

Establishing acom strategy

Establishing anevaluation plan

No.

of L

NP

s

Completed Making good progress Started but still early Plans are in place No plans to do No response


31

The majority of LNPs have a chairperson, coordinator and a steering group / board in place (Figure A5.9). Fewer LNPs have an action plan prepared, although it is not uncommon. Some of the chairpersons and coordinators emphasised the importance of a thorough establishment phase, even if this delayed subsequent activity. Such participants considered that, due to the importance of the strategic influencing role of LNPs and the need to engage broadly, it is important to attract and engage the right partners and senior board members.

Figure A5.9 The majority of LNPs have a chairperson, coordinator and a steering group / board in place

Q9: …please indicate which of the following are currently present in the LNP you are involved in?

N = 35 LNPs.


Approximately a quarter (41 of 149) of LNP participants became involved in the LNP as they were involved with other local initiatives or networks related to maintaining and enhancing the natural environment. Local Biodiversity Action Partnerships (LBAPs) were the most commonly cited initiative that interviewees had been involved with prior to becoming involved with the LNP. In such cases the LBAP often formed the foundation for LNPs, providing an operational network of parties interested in the local natural environment. Interviewees that were involved with LBAPs prior to their involvement with LNPs were typically from the environment or local authority sector.

LNP participants became involved with LNPs for a wide variety of reasons, but a common theme was the desire to influence and improve the strategic coordination of the protection and enhancement of the local environment. The involvement of a wide variety of sectors in LNPs, especially those organisations not typically associated with natural environment issues (such as organisations from business or economic development), was also identified by a large proportion of respondents as a key factor motivating them to participate in the LNP. The potential to identify and secure funding through involvement with an LNP was identified by a minority of respondents. These respondents stated that they were keen to be involved with LNPs in case any natural environment funding was disbursed via LNPs in the future.

The majority of survey respondents were from the local government, environment and ‘other’ sectors (Figure A5.9). The other sector includes partnerships, such as partnerships of local authorities and local conservation groups, for example, and also independent experts.

3234 34

23

19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

A coordinator /secretariat

A chair A steering group orboard

A delivery group /delivery groups

A forum of widerinterested parties

Nu

mbe

r of

LN

Ps


32

Figure A5.10 LNP chairpersons and coordinators are from a wide variety of sectors, the majority of members are from the local government and environment sectors

Q6: Which of the following sectors do you primarily represent on the LNP? (Please select the most relevant)

N = 87 survey responses (23 chairpersons, 24 coordinators, 40 members)

LNP members’ most commonly cited reason for becoming involved was to ensure they had access to funding. These members considered that, although there was no funding available now, funding may become available at some stage in the next few years. Several members were of the opinion that LNPs are likely to be an important structure in the future for securing funding and coordinating local action. Access to funding was not cited by any chairpersons or coordinators as a reason for their involvement with LNPs.

Chairpersons, coordinators and members cited the potential to have a strategic influencing role as their primary reason to become involved with LNPs. These individuals expressed a desire for LNPs to facilitate more cohesive and joined up local policy and projects to benefit the natural environment. LNPs were identified as providing a means to embed a ‘natural environment agenda’ in organisations not typically considered as working on environmental issues, for example by getting local businesses and LEPs involved.

Chairpersons’ and coordinators’ often became involved with LNPs as they had been involved with pre-existing biodiversity partnerships / environmental networks. This was also a common reason cited by LNP members; approximately 25 per cent of members interviewed had become involved through their involvement with pre-existing initiatives / networks.

34 of 149 of members and coordinators became involved as participation of LNPs is part of the remit of the organisation they work for. For example, one coordinator became involved as her employer, a local authority, had agreed to provide some part-time resource to the LNP for a coordinator. Several members from the health and business sectors became involved as they were invited to represent their organisation or sector.

Figure A5.11 demonstrates that organisations from a wide variety of sectors are engaged with LNPs; however the level of engagement varies between the sectors. Chairpersons and coordinators considered that engagement is highest among organisations from the local government and environment sectors. Figure A5.11 also shows that Defra agencies / delivery bodies, and national parks / areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), were considered be more engaged relative to

2

5

7

3

1

2

1

1

1

8

5

7

1

1

1

1

16

12

4

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Local Government (upper tier: county / unitary)

Environmental organisations

Other

Businesses and/or business organisations

National parks and AONBs

Defra agencies / delivery bodies

Education / research organisations

Health organisations

Local Government (lower tier: district)

Local Records Centre

Unspecified sector

Land owners / land managers / farmers

Number of respondents

Chair Coordinator Member


33

other sectors. Sectors that were considered to be less engaged include community, health, (building / land) developers, businesses / business organisations and LEPs.

Several LNP participants are disappointed that LNPs are not working more closely with organisations from the health and business sectors. The majority of LNPs that completed the survey (33 of 35) have a priority related to public health and well-being (Figure A5.13), but only 13 of 35 have started to make any progress against health related priorities. During the interviews, several chairpersons and coordinators stated that it was difficult to identify who to engage with on LHWBs, and difficult to bridge the gap between natural environment and public health. That is, chairpersons and coordinators are unsure about how to engage with LHWBs and other organisations related to public health. They do not have a good understanding of how the natural environment and public health sectors could work together to address issues of mutual interest. The lack of engagement with sector has, in the opinion of the LNP participants, constrained LNPs’ ability to work on health related issues. Engaging with organisations in the health sector was a commonly identified theme that LNPs would like included in the thematic evaluation (see Annex 6).

Figure A5.11 Environmental organisations, Defra agencies and local government are the most engaged with LNPs

Q10: Please indicate how engaged the following are in the LNP

N = 35 LNPs


In general, LNP chairpersons, coordinators and members consider that the organisations involved are generally the right ones, but that there is some room for improvement (Figure A5.12). During the interviews, respondents commented that organisations most involved with LNPs are those traditionally working on improvements to the natural environment, for example, local Wildlife Trusts and government environment specialists. The same respondents considered that their respective LNPs would benefit from the contributions of other organisations not typically associated with environmental work, such as organisations from the health sector and also LEPs. LNPs often found it difficult to engage with organisations from the health sector, such as LWHBs, and with LEPs.

A significant proportion (14 of 35) of LNPs stated that LNP board members are working well together, and that this was an important factor contributing to the overall success of the LNP. Members, chairpersons and coordinators were unanimous that LNP boards are well balanced and do a good job of balancing the views, opinions and priorities of LNP participants. The diversity of LNP boards was identified as a particular strength by LNP participants, helping to ensure that LNPs focus on a wide

32

31

20

17

13

9

8

7

6

6

5

5

5

2

2

11

4

10

11

10

16

14

11

1

16

15

14

2

1

2

2

4

7

9

14

7

8

15

8

10

12

8

2

4

2

4

4

2

6

3

2

2

1

1

2

1

28

1

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35



Local Government (upper tier)

National parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Local Government (lower tier)



Local Enterprise Partnerships



Other


Community organisations

Local planners

Developers

Number of LNPS

Very engaged Somewhat engaged Not very engaged Not engaged at all No response


34

range of priorities. LNP participants also expressed satisfaction with the extent to which their contributions were valued and acknowledged. A committed and enthusiastic chairperson also helps to maintain momentum, obtain support from board members, and attract senior level appointments to the LNP.

A board that includes organisations from a diversity of sectors was also identified as important to the success of LNPs. It helps to ensure that the LNP is focused on a balanced set of priorities that extend beyond the usual set of natural environment issues.

Respondents noted that the legitimacy of an LNP is strengthened when the board works well together, and the opinions and viewpoints of all board members are acknowledged. Doing so helps to obtain and maintain the buy-in and support of participating organisations. This in turn helps to garner the support necessary to engage with organisations not typically involved with protecting or enhancing the natural environment.

Figure A5.12 Chairs and coordinators agree that, in general, the right organisations are involved

Q11: To what extent do you think that the right organisations are involved with the LNP?




The majority of respondents are satisfied with the progress LNPs have made, emphasising that they are particularly pleased with the progress that has been made with the limited resources available to them. LNPs emphasised the significant progress that has been made in setting up governance structures, identifying priorities and agreeing a strategy in a relatively short period of time and with few resources. When pressed about satisfaction with the impacts of LNPs, that is the difference LNPs have made, most respondents considered that it was too early to tell. Dissatisfaction with the extent of LNP progress was expressed by some, but this dissatisfaction was related to the constraints posed by the limited amount of resources available.

The presence of a funded coordinator was identified as an important factor in the successful establishment of an LNP. A funded coordinator provides the secretariat function necessary to maintain the LNP’s momentum, organise meetings, prepare and circulate documents and generally

Very much so, 11

To some degree, 20

Not sure, 4

LNPs

Very much so, 9

To some degree, 29

Not really , 2

LNP members


35

contribute to the progress of an LNP. Interviewees suggested that LNPs’ progress depends on the work of the coordinator, and that progress would be severely limited in their absence.

A5.2.2 Establishing links with LEPs

Figure A5.13 suggests the majority of LNPs have made some progress in influencing LEP strategies, but the interviews suggest that LNPs are disappointed with results to date and would like to see a much more significant impact. A consistent theme to emerge during the interviews was frustration about the influence LNPs have had on LEP economic strategies. During the interviews, most respondents (there were some limited exceptions) expressed disappointment about the extent of engagement with LEPs and the difficulty of influencing LEP economic strategies.

30 of 35 LNPs, 25 of 40 LNP members, reported that establishing links with LEPs posed significant or very significant challenges. LNP chairpersons and coordinators are concerned that a failure to adequately engage with LEPs could reduce the scope for funding of natural environment initiatives during the 2014 – 2020 EU funding period.

LNPs linked the difficulty of engaging with LEPs to several issues, the most frequently cited was the relatively limited credibility LNPs have with LEPs. Chairpersons and coordinators, and some members too, considered that the purpose of LNPs and their role is not adequately defined, and that LNP responsibilities are not well articulated. The majority of chairpersons and coordinators suggested that more leadership from Defra (and other central government departments) would help to increase LNPs’ credibility with LEPs. It was suggested that Defra should set out a vision to provide a clear role and purpose for LNPs to work towards. Some respondents suggested that a national network of LNPs, similar to the national LEP network3, would help LNPs to work together and increase the visibility of LNPs among other organisations. Respondents also saw a role for central government departments to encourage LEPs to work with LNPs. Suggestions included promoting the role and function of LNPs to LEPs, requiring (rather than encouraging) LEPs to work closely with LNPs, and providing the resources necessary to maintain a full-time dedicated coordinator.

Another commonly cited barrier to engaging with LEPs was a perceived lack of understanding among LEPs about why they should be concerned with the natural environment. A few LNP participants commented that LEPs appear to have little understanding of how the natural environment can contribute to economic growth and instead view the natural environment as a barrier to growth. LNP participants also suggested that LEPs have little incentive to engage with LNPs to improve their comprehension of the potential opportunities offered by the natural environment. LEPs are advised to engage with LNPs, but are not required to demonstrate how the views and opinions of LNPs have been incorporated into LEP economic strategies.

The lack of LNP resources was another frequently cited issue that reduces the credibility of LNPs with LEPs. Without the resources necessary to action or implement anything, respondents commented that LNPs are not taken seriously by LEPs and are often viewed as ‘talking shops’ of limited consequence. However the lack of backing for LNPs, and their limited profile, was considered to be more significant than the lack of resources. LNPs felt that an increase in resources would be less effective at improving credibility compared to the potential benefits of enhanced backing from central government about what LNPs are for and why they matter.

LNP participants expressed concerns that a failure to engage with LEPs may result in plans for development and growth that fail to adequately reflect the importance of the natural environment. This could potentially delay development, as natural environment considerations are included late in the process, or could result in negative impacts on the natural environment.

3 The LEP Network is a http://www.lepnetwork.org.uk/


36

A5.2.3 LNPs often overlap with the boundaries of more than one LEP or LA, and sometimes overlap with other LNPs

A map published by Natural England shows that there are 9 LNPs that overlap with several other LNPs4, so there are a total of 20 LNPs that cover overlapping areas. Many more LNPs overlap with more than one LEP and / or with more than one LA.

The impact of overlapping LNPs is generally considered to be minimal, and in most cases there is some communication and coordination between overlapping LNPs. Several overlapping LNPs pointed to good experiences of working collaboratively with their neighbouring LNP, for example undertaking joint engagement with the same LEP. Other benefits of overlapping LNPs identified by LNP participants include the scope for LNPs to focus on issues of particular importance in certain geographies, and to collaborate with overlapping LNPs to plan and deliver more strategic initiatives. Collaboration between overlapping LNPs also provides access to a wider range of expertise than would otherwise be available.

Several examples of overlapping LNPs resulting in negative impacts were identified by LNP participants. For example, in some instances establishing LNPs and identifying priorities has been more time consuming for overlapping LNPs. In such cases it has been necessary to ensure that priorities of overlapping LNPs are complementary, and also it has taken time to resolve issues related to the overlapping boundaries. Overlapping LNPs have also sometimes required additional effort to engage with local authorities and LEPs. Overlapping LNPs need to work together to ensure that engagement is coordinated and does not overburden LAs and LEPs.

Respondents commented that the mismatch between LEP and LNP borders often complicates engagement with LEPs. Respondents stated that LEPs do not typically understand why there is more than one LNP in an area and why two LNPs in the same area might be addressing different priorities related to the natural environment. However several LNPs have found that working together with other LNPs increases their credibility with LEPs and puts the LNPs in a better position when attempting to influence LEP economic strategies.

LNPs frequently overlap with more than one LEP. Engaging with more than one LEP increases demand on already limited LNP resources. Rather than attempt to engage with all overlapping LEPs, some LNPs decided to engage with a select few only. For example, the Peak District LNP decided to engage with only 3 of the 6 LEPs it overlaps.

Some LNPs also overlap with more than one LA, but this does not appear to cause issues similar to those described above for LEPs. The reasons for this are not clear, but it could be because LAs are relatively familiar with the rationale underpinning work to protect and enhance the natural environment and are more receptive to LNPs.

A5.2.4 LNPs are working on a variety of priorities

Table A5.1 lists examples of the priorities LNP participants identified during the interviews. LNPs are working on a mix of focused and overarching priorities. Focused priorities typically relate to specific topics, while overarching priorities are generally broad and relate to thematic areas or issues.

Although the examples provided in Table A5.1 look slightly different, Figure A5.13 suggests that there is a high level of commonality of priorities between LNPs.

Table A5.1 LNP are working on focused and overarching priorities

Type of priority Examples of LNP priorities

Focused priorities

Improving 7 particular local landscapes, including large and small areas.

Restoration and conservation of 3 landscape areas in a national park.

Delivery of services related to environment and biodiversity to local authorities and other interested parties. This currently consists of providing the evidence and

4 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/208874/lnp-england-map.pdf


37


expertise required, but there is also a priority to enhance local tourism related to the natural environment.

Developing landscape level project delivery, by supporting two NIAs.

Establishing working relationships with the LEP on carbon off-setting

The potential impact of ash dieback on SSSIs. Socio-economic issues, for example, low farm incomes, the impacts of poor farming expertise. Biodiversity and land management.

Engaging people not traditionally engaged with natural environment, focusing specifically on people in lower socio-economic groups in urban areas. Linking this engagement with local health initiatives.

Developing partnerships between voluntary and non-voluntary groups. Promoting and enhancing biodiversity by engaging with LEPs and influencing their funding decisions. Promoting investment in natural capital by engaging with LEPs and influencing their funding decisions. Continue with work initiated by the BAP on the natural environment.

Overarching priorities

Working on 4 themes to conserve nature and environment, and connect projects and initiatives across the LNP area for the benefit of nature, people and the economy. The 4 themes include nature, the economy, people and partners and climate change.

Development, green infrastructure, economic growth, strengthening society and a healthy society

Coordinate policy responses to key strategic plans, such as LA spatial and development plans, into major planning applications.

Priorities are very broad, they include: economic growth and regeneration, improving the natural environment and health and well-being.

Natural capital and carbon management Developing evidence on carbon

Working with the Record centre Co-ordinating local sites A biodiversity action plan Geo-diversity Strategy

Natural Capital. Natural Value. Natural Resilience. Natural Understanding. Natural Influence.

Development of large-scale landscape-based projects. Carbon offsetting and biodiversity. Protection of natural habitats.

Agriculture. Spatial Planning. Tourism. Public health.

Influencing and inspiring, building natural capital, and improving health and wellbeing (the LNP has not started working on health).

Health, resilience and ecological networks Health and wellbeing Sustainable economic growth Water (consumption but also the local waterways)

Developing local ecological networks.


38


Identifying opportunities. Advising. Promoting Green economic growth

The priorities for which LNPs considered they were most commonly “achieving results” / “making good progress” include engaging in the development of LEP strategies (25 of 35)5, improving the evidence base or use of the evidence (17 of 35), and supporting ecological networks (15 of 35) (Figure A5.13).The good progress made engaging with LEP reflects the policy timetable and the need to influence LEPs in the phase of their establishment and strategy development.

In addition to the priorities listed in Figure A5.13, LNPs are also working on overarching priorities related to providing strategic guidance and inputs to the work of LNP members. This includes providing guidance and support to members and facilitating the exchange of information.

The priorities of LNPs that evolved from pre-existing initiatives or networks, such as LBAPs, are often based on work that was already underway. Other LNPs identified priorities by consulting with their membership. Irrespective of the method used to set LNP priorities, the majority of respondents agreed that the priorities were the right ones. Respondents that expressed reservations about the selected priorities were typically concerned that there was insufficient focus on issues related to health and the economy.

Priority identification and selection was often heavily influenced by the resources currently available to the LNP, and also the resources that may potentially be available in the future. Many LNPs are conservative in their ambition due to the low levels of funding available and their reliance on voluntary contributions (of time and funding). Priorities are often based on existing initiatives as there was typically some sort of funding or support already in place. LNPs’ conservative approach to priority setting also means that they remain focused on having a strategic influence rather than becoming involved in delivery.

All of the chairpersons and coordinators interviewed as part of the evaluation considered that the priorities identified for their LNP were the right ones. The majority of chairpersons and coordinators were involved in identifying and selecting the priorities, and emphasised that the priorities were identified through a consultative process and in agreement with other LNP participants (typically the board, but sometimes also the wider membership). The majority of LNP members also agreed that the priorities were the right ones, but there were some dissenting voices. Four LNP members, representing 4 LNPs, thought that the priorities were not right. Reasons offered included that the priorities selected were unrealistic and unlikely to be achievable, that they omitted locally important natural environment issues, and were too broad and high level to give direction to member organisations.

5 The relatively high proportion of LNPs that reported making progress influencing LEP strategies contradicts feedback which suggests their impacts on LEPs has been limited to date.


39

Figure A5.13 LNPs are working on a wide range of priorities

Q13: The following are priorities which some LNPs might be working on. Please score all that apply.

N = 35 LNPs

The figure is based on LNP chairpersons’ and coordinators’ survey responses. A response was provided by chairpersons and / or coordinators for 35 LNPs

6

5

5

5

5

5

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

0

19

12

10

8

6

1

6

8

4

4

2

12

7

2

10

9

5

5

1

6

11

12

7

10

2

7

11

9

5

8

9

5

8

11

9

4

12

3

4

7

13

11

1

5

14

13

10

14

12

13

9

14

12

13

17

18

2

1

3

3

1

3

8

7

1

2

14

1

2

5

6

2

1

1

1

1

25

3

2

1

4

2

3

1

2

2

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Involvement/engagement in the development of LEP strategies

Improving the evidence base and/or improved use of evidence

Activity supporting other ecological networks

Activity supporting the restoration and creation of new habitats

Work relating to strategic land use planning such as through the Local Plan

Other (please specify)

Working with current nationally funded Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs)

Protecting and or improving woodlands and forests

Work relating to access to the natural environment

Identifying new locally determined NIAs

Work on pollinators

Activity related to catchment management

Activity relating to climate change adaptation

Protecting and or improving marine or coastal environments

Activity relating to biodiversity offsetting

Other work relating to local public health and wellbeing

Activity relating to flood risk management

Informing the targeting/delivery of agri-environment schemes

Work with local providers/beneficiaries on payment for ecosystems servicesschemes

Number of LNPs

Achieving results Making some progressStarted but still at an early stage The intention is there, but work hasn’t startedNo intention to work on this priority Option not selected


40

A5.3 Outcomes

This section discusses LNPs’ outcomes under the five outcome types presented in the overall LNP intervention logic inSection 4.2:

■ Awareness: raised awareness of the value and benefit of the natural environment amongst partners and stakeholders.

■ Knowledge: enhanced expertise and data sharing about the local environment amongst partners, stakeholders, and the public.

■ Influence: effective influence on the decisions of partners and stakeholders so that national priorities (NEWP) are supported by the activities of local stakeholders.

■ Delivery: better implementation of actions that promote improvement of natural areas.

■ Collaboration: improved collaboration and coordination among local organisations, and between local and national organisations.

The section also discusses LNPs’ contribution to Biodiversity 2020, the added value of LNPs, and LNPs’ future role and future support needs to continue and enhance outcome delivery.

A5.3.1 LNPs are making good progress against their outcomes

The outcomes most commonly reported by LNPs include increasing collaboration and coordination, increasing knowledge sharing, engaging a wider range of stakeholders in natural environment actions, and increasing awareness about the natural environment (Figure A5.14).

Figure A5.14 highlights that impacts reported by LNPs relate mainly to their strategic and influencing role. Only a minority of LNPs have so far delivered initiatives related to the natural environment, or led to a better use of funds / resources for managing the natural environment. During the interviews the majority of LNPs considered that the role of the LNP was as a strategic rather than delivery body. Some would like LNPs to have more of a delivery role, if additional resources were available to at least sustain a full-time dedicated coordinator. Other LNPs are keen to avoid becoming involved in delivery. Reasons cited included potential duplication with the work of other local organisations, and the recognition that the strategic role of LNPs is important and would probably not be met if LNPs were also responsible for delivery of environmental actions.

The sections below describe the extent to which LNPs are achieving each of the five outcomes and review the issues preventing outcomes being achieved. The sections also include examples of LNP achievements under each outcome.

Local Nature Partnership Phase II Evaluation –Final Report Annexes

41

Figure A5.14 Outcomes of LNP activities

Q14: Please state the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: The LNP has…

N = 35 LNPs

The figure is based on LNP chairpersons’ and coordinators’ survey responses. A response was provided by chairpersons and / or coordinators for 35 LNPs

10

10

7

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

2

2

17

13

16

13

14

14

13

21

12

9

5

12

8

3

3

7

4

4

8

2

6

6

12

6

11

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

5

7

8

8

8

10

10

8

6

10

14

13

13

8

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Increased collaboration and coordination

Engaged a wider range of sectors in natural environmental actions

Increased awareness about the natural environment

Increased the amount and/or quality of data and evidence on thelocal natural environment.

Increased the integration of the natural environment into localdecision making

Led to a more joined up, strategic and better targeted approach tomanaging the natural environment

Led to a greater focus on local priorities.

Increased knowledge sharing

Increased the pool of local expertise and skills available on thenatural environment

Led to a larger scale and more coherent approach to managing thenatural environment.

Delivered initiatives related to the natural environment

Encouraged action in areas where local environmentalopportunities and needs are greatest

Led to better use of funds / resources for managing the naturalenvironment

No. of LNPs

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Do not know No option selected


42

A5.3.2 Awareness: raised awareness of the value and benefit of the natural environment amongst partners and stakeholders

7 of 35 LNPs strongly agree and 16 of 35 agree that LNPs have increased awareness about the natural environment (Figure A5.14)). Two types of awareness-raising were identified during the interviews, passive and active.

Passive awareness-raising occurs when LNP members meet with each other to discuss the work they are involved in, and identify opportunities to protect and enhance the local natural environment. LNPs typically include organisations from a broad range of sectors and provide the opportunity for organisations that do not usually work together to meet and discuss issues of mutual interest. Several interviewees suggested that organisations meeting and communicating with each other helps to raise general awareness about the value and benefit of the natural environment, and also helps organisations to identify how they could cooperate to enhance the natural environment.

Active awareness-raising involves LNPs undertaking specific initiatives to disseminate information about the benefit and value of the natural environment. It can include, for example, an LNP working with a LEP to inform it of the environmental assets that exist in a local area and the potential economic benefits of enhancing and protecting them. Active awareness-raising requires that an LNP has access to the necessary information, the resources available to prepare and disseminate the information, and has sufficient credibility to access other organisations.

Table A5.2 includes examples identified during the interviews of awareness-raising by LNPs

Table A5.2 Examples of how LNPs have raised awareness of the value and benefit of the natural environment among partners and stakeholders

Type of awareness raising

Example provided by LNP participants

Passive awareness raising

The LNP identified what needs to be done to improve the environment, and how LNP members could potentially capitalise on an improved environment.

The LNP raises awareness by conveying a broader perspective about the natural environment to a wide range of sectors.

Establishing the LNP and including a wide membership base has raised the profile of the natural environment across a range of organisations and sectors. Even without active engagement, local organisations are more receptive to ideas about how to improve the natural environment.

The main added value of the LNP is that there is now a wider partnership of organisations working on issues related to the natural environment. This increases awareness about potential actions and initiatives that will benefit the natural environment.

Raising awareness of the value of the natural environment with the local health and wellbeing board and farming interests.

Increasing the awareness of the local council about the potential for improving the natural environment by having a range of stakeholders included in LNP meetings.

Raising awareness among local authority officers about the value of the natural environment.

Inclusion of a LEP representative on the LNP board has helped the LEP to understand why the natural environment matters. The LEP did not understand but are starting to appreciate the potential economic benefits of a healthy natural environment.

Active awareness raising

An LNP board member gave a talk that inspired the health team of the local council to set up a workshop on health and the environment.

Business members of the LNP have produced case studies about actions businesses can undertake to enhance and protect the natural environment. The purpose of the case studies is to raise awareness about steps businesses can take. A conference to showcase the case studies to local businesses is planned for 2014.

Engaging with the LEP to raise awareness about the links between the natural


43

Type of awareness raising


environment and the economy.

LNP workshops have raised awareness of LNP goals, and raised awareness of NIAs and conservation.

The LNP has produced documents for distribution, including a vision for NIAs, the potential role of natural capital in development, and a state of the environment report to raise awareness of conservation issues in the county.

The LNP held a meeting with the LEP about the potential for development that would enhance the local environment and economy, and the LEP committed to work with the LNP on the local environment and economic development (LEED) process.

The LNP has raised awareness among the LEP about the need to include objectives related to a healthy natural environment in the LEP economic plan, and promoted the importance of the environment for the development of local employment.

The LNP has raised awareness among LEP members that the natural environment should be considered in the LEP growth plan, for example green infrastructure opportunities that could be co-delivered by the LEP and other economic partners.

One of the LNP working groups highlighted significant deficiencies in national and local environment evidence systems in relation to statutory developments.

A5.3.3 Knowledge: enhanced expertise and data sharing about the local environment amongst partners, stakeholders, and the public

The majority of responding LNPs (21 of 35) agree that they have increased knowledge sharing, and a further 4 of 35 strongly agree (Figure A5.14).

LNPs have increased knowledge sharing by providing a platform for participants to meet and discuss issues of mutual interest, and to identify and suggest how information they are aware of could be used by other LNP participants. This facilitates the exchange of information about the skills and expertise of LNP participants. Several LNPs cited this as an important element of LNP added value as this information would not have been exchanged without the LNP, and the organisations exchanging information would be unlikely to meet each other in the absence of the LNP.

In addition to sharing existing information, LNPs have also commissioned or undertaken projects to collect new information. The new information is intended to provide LNP members with the evidence they need to make the case for investment in the natural environment, and also to identify what investments are necessary and where they should be made. Several LNPs have produced maps of environmental assets in a local area, such as natural capital or ecosystem services maps, for use by LNP members as part of their planning and decision-making processes. Other LNPs have responded to member requests and produced evidence demonstrating the economic benefits of a healthy natural environment. This information is also intended to help LNP members make the case for investments that protect and enhance the natural environment.

Table A5.3 includes examples identified during the interviews of knowledge sharing by LNPs

Table A5.3 Examples of how LNPs have enhanced expertise and data sharing about the local environment

Type of knowledge sharing


Sharing of existing information

The LNP functions as a 'one stop shop' for nature which enables LNP members to better work with other sectors.

The LNP partners shared their knowledge of the natural environment with the local authority, and there is now a section in their state of the environment report on natural capital.

LNP partners have mapped their respective assets and skills to facilitate knowledge sharing among the partnership.


44

Type of knowledge sharing


The LNP provides a forum for Nature Improvement Areas to share information about the work they are undertaking.

The LNP has provided a platform for partners to debate and share experiences of the potential benefits of investing in the natural environment.

The LNP has expanded to new areas of biodiversity offsetting and been involved in new biodiversity offsetting record centre in the county. This has enabled data sharing between the groups within the LNP.

Sharing of newly commissioned information

The LNP has produced a really good document on invasive species which will be used by members in the future.

The LNP completed an ecosystem mapping, supported by funding from Natural England. The mapping information is shared with LNP members to support their planning and decision-making.

The LNP produced natural capital maps based on LNP partners’ data. The maps highlight areas of available green space.

The LNP provided information on the natural environment to the local health and wellbeing board. The data was used in the preparation of a joint strategic needs assessment.

The LNP has provided data related to the impact of development on biodiversity / natural areas to local authorities to contribute to the local planning process.

The LNP worked with businesses to help them understand the potential higher level stewardship funding available to them. The LNP also helped to put the businesses in contact with organisations experienced in the preparation of grant / funding applications.

The LNP helps to coordinate access to partner’s data.

The LNP has started to map the value of the green economy, quantitatively and qualitatively. This information will be will be shared with partners to help them make the case for investment in the natural environment.

A5.3.4 Influence: effective influence on the decisions of partners and stakeholders so that national priorities (NEWP) are supported by the activities of local stakeholders

5 of 35 LNPs strongly agree, and 14 of 35 agree, that the LNP has increased the integration of the natural environment into decision making (Figure A5.14). 2 of 35 LNPs strongly agree, and 12 of 35 agree, that the LNP has encouraged action in areas where local environmental opportunities and needs are greatest.

Although LNPs are influencing the decisions of partners and stakeholders to some degree, evidence of tangible results is limited. It has taken a significant amount of time for LNPs to establish the necessary governance structures and agree priorities, reducing the amount of time LNPs have been actively working on issues. While LNPs have found it difficult to engage with LEPs, most examples of LNP influence provided during the interviews relate to influencing of LEP plans and strategies. In such cases, LNP engagement has led to the inclusion of objectives or plans related to the natural environment. An LNP participant provided an example of the LNP influencing the LEP to allocate £1.7 million of EU funding for the implementation of green infrastructure projects over the next 7 years.

LNPs also provided examples of other organisations that they have influenced, for example engaging with a group of local authorities in the preparation of a green infrastructure strategy and influencing how the strategy will be delivered, influencing a Local Health and Wellbeing Board’s agenda, and helping to improve the management of a National Park by improving coordination between various organisations involved in delivery.

LNPs provided several examples of efforts to influence other organisations, but which had not (yet) resulted in any apparent change. The LNPs were keen to emphasise that they had not yet had an influence but expected that over time their influence would increase. For example, one LNP stated


45

that it will start to have an influence when the local authority begins to consult the LNP about strategic planning documents and other policy documents.

Table A5.4 includes examples of LNPs influencing LEPs and other organisations, and also provides examples of activities undertaken by LNPs to influence organisations but which have yet to yield results.

Table A5.4 Examples of LNPs influencing the decisions of partners and stakeholders so that national priorities are supported by the activities of local stakeholders

Types of LNP influence


Influencing LEPs LNP engagement with the LEP has resulted in the allocation of £1.7 million of EU funding for the implementation of green infrastructure projects over the next 7 years.

The LNP’s status and credibility has enabled it to influence LEP and LA plans. Without the LNP this influence would not have been possible. However there is still a way to go until the LNP has more significant impacts on local organisations.

The LNP has influenced the LEP’s economic strategy, and along with another LNP, offered the LEP advice regarding their sustainable water and conservation plans.

The LNP has a good relationship with the LEP and has influenced its agenda with respect to the natural environment.

The LNP has influenced the LEP investment strategy, resulting in the preparation of a separate European Structural Investment Fund (ESIF) programme related to the environment.

The LNP’s main achievement has been its engagement with the LEP. The LNP provided inputs for the LEP’s EU funding strategy and economic plans. As a result, the LEP incorporated environmental sections in its economic plans.

The main achievement has been the engagement with the LEP. The LNP provided its inputs into the LEP’s EU funding strategy and economic plans. As a result, the LEP incorporated environmental sections in its economic plans.

The LNP has made an active contribution to the LEPs efforts with respect to the next round of EU funding (for the 2014 – 2020 period).

Influencing other organisations

The LNP has helped a group of local authorities to prepare a green infrastructure strategy. The LNP’s input has influenced how the strategy will be delivered.

The diverse and committed board has helped to increase the effectiveness of management of the national park.

The LNP has worked with the local health and wellbeing board and influenced its agenda.

Potential influence Decision-making influence is difficult to gauge but could be happening. One example is the CAP reform, where there has been a robust debate between the WT and the NFU. It is hoped that they would have been influenced.

Influencing decision-making: this has not happened yet. When LEP ESIF is published in January there is likely to be a major impact here (assuming the LNP sections and proposals have been included).

The LNP will be consulted about strategic planning documents and policy documents under development by the local authority.

The LNP was requested to submit an ‘offer’ of what the LNP could do. The LEP will consider the offer and may include something specific in the economic plan under preparation.

They have been able to influence some decision making in a minimal way by talking to the LEP about their economic plan, influenced the internal policy of the National Park and perhaps impacted on the actions of the local Wildlife Trust.

The LNP is currently contributing to a policy document being produced by the local council called ‘Quality of Life Support’. The council wants to ensure that the section of the document related to wildlife and habitat is focused on the LNP and LNP priorities.


46

A5.3.5 Delivery: better implementation of actions that promote improvement of natural areas

Relatively few LNPs have achieved outcomes related to improved delivery. Only 3 of 35 LNPs strongly agree, and 5 of 35 agree, that the LNP has delivered initiatives related to the natural environment. Only 2 of 35 strongly agree and 8 of 35 agree that the LNP has improved the use of funds / resources for managing the natural environment.

The majority of LNPs are not delivering projects. Most do not have the resources available to engage in delivery and are focused on maintaining a strategic influencing role. The few projects that have been delivered by LNPs are typically related to biodiversity and are often legacy projects that were previously the responsibility of pre-existing partnerships. Table A5.5 includes examples of projects delivered by LNPs and projects for which the LNP has helped to improve delivery.

Table A5.5 Examples of LNPs contributing to the better implementation of actions that improve natural areas


A number of projects have been delivered by the LNP or are still underway, including a biodiversity and species project, a green infrastructure project, work on an upland peat land partnership, a hay meadows project, and a pollinator project.

The LNP has supervised a project to restore natural connections along and between watercourses, a project by coastal communities, NIA projects and a butterfly conservation project.

The LNP is working with developers to identify and deliver local green infrastructure.

The LNP has supported NIA designation, and contributed to efforts by the county council to enhance landscape scale delivery of natural environment projects.

The LNP provides support service to local authorities to facilitate the assessment of key development sites.

By mapping the potential for woodland creation the LNP helped to secure funding from the Forestry Commission.

The LNP has been working on legacy carried over from the previous partnership. Projects relate to peat land, biodiversity offsetting, green infrastructure, data mapping and coordination with the national park to influence LEP policy.

The LNP operates a small grant fund to fund projects that help promote health and wellbeing through the use of green space. Grants have been provided and projects are currently being implemented by LNP members.

The LNP helped to improve the delivery of the following actions: development of four farming pilots in protected areas (High Nature Value farming); preparation of a joint bid in support of wood landscape project; and, wood/ecological mapping.

A5.3.6 Collaboration: improved collaboration and coordination among local organisations, and between local and national organisations

Almost a third of responding LNPs (10 of 35) strongly agree, and an additional 17 of 35 agree, that LNPs have increased collaboration and coordination between partners of the LNP and between the LNP and other organisations (Figure A5.14).

LNP participants consider that the LNP provides a forum for organisations to discuss their plans and priorities, helping them to understand what other organisations are working on now and planning to work on in the future. This was identified as one of the key benefits of LNPs as it enables organisations working locally to avoid duplication of effort and ensure that potential gaps are identified and addressed.

In addition to providing a forum for the exchange of ideas and information, LNPs also facilitate the delivery of collaborative projects / initiatives between LNP members and between the LNP and other (non-member) organisations. For example, an LNP is involved in a collaborative project with farmers to retain existing farmers on the land, and attract new farmers.

Table A5.6 includes examples of LNPs increasing collaborating and coordination by providing a forum for the exchange of ideas and information, and also includes examples of collaborative projects LNPs are involved with.


47

Table A5.6 Examples of LNPs increasing collaboration and coordination

Types of LNP collaboration


Forum to collaborate The LNP provides a framework that enables working together of different organisations on a joint county basis.

The LNP provides a forum for local environmental groups to collaborate following the demise of the biodiversity action plan groups.

The LNP improves collaboration by bringing a dialogue together.

There has been better collaboration. The respondent has had much stronger interactions with people than was the case before. This aspect is positive because the composition of the LNP is very broad.

The LNP is helping to coordinate actions between partners and ensure that organisations are aware of what others are doing.

The LNP is coordinating work that would not have happened before, between partners that would not have worked together before.

The LNP has definitely added value, for example it has improved the NIA by bringing local environmental groups together.

The LNP improves coordination by sustaining a broader partnership. Business, health, higher education and natural environment sectors come together and talk. This improves planning by helping organisations to think about the plans of others.

Without the LNP there would be a lot more confusion and competition for funding. The LNP encourages partners to look outwards to what others are doing.

[The LNP's coordinating role] helps to improve sequencing of actions, increasing effectiveness, and also helping to ensure that developments and plans are less likely to have a negative impact on biodiversity. E.g. working with the LA on spatial planning helps to avoid potential adverse impacts on sites with important biodiversity.

Collaboration and coordination has been enhanced in respect to mitigating biodiversity loss. The LNP has played a role in getting buy in from funders and building new relationships.

The LNP has a memorandum of cooperation with the planning authorities in all overlapping local authorities.

The LNP has been working with the local council to champion the work of a successful NIA. The LNP has also overseen around 50 projects within its catchment.

The LNP has helped to coordinate the work of several local programmes, such as a landscape partnership programme. The LNP provided an efficient mechanism for the engagement of partners in these programs: without the LNP, it would have taken me much longer to find the right partners.

The LNP worked with the LEP to help develop the local economic strategy related to European Structural and Investment Funds. The LNP demonstrated to the LEP that it can make a useful contribution and that the environment should be considered.

Collaborative projects

The LNP is working with the local commissioning group (part of clinical commissioning group for Cambridgeshire) and GP forum to raise profile of what [natural environment resources are] available and demonstrate how the LNP can support local health.

The LNP initiated a collaborative project with the Environment Agency and local council to improve resilience to flooding (and other natural disasters).

The LNP initiated a collaborative project with its members to review how to get more people and groups involved in managing the natural environment.

The LNP is working with the farming community to examine how farmers can make better use of HLS to deliver environmental improvements.

The LNP is involved in a collaborative project with farmers to find ways of keeping people on the land, and attracting new people to the land. For example, the LNP will help farmers to fill out online forms for new EU funding sources.


48

Types of LNP collaboration


The LNP supported collaborative work between members, including the LEP. For example, a local university worked in collaboration with other LNP members on water sampling projects and the development of a biodiversity action plan.

A5.3.7 Contribution to Biodiversity 2020

The Biodiversity 2020 targets outcomes have superseded Biodiversity Action Planning as the framework for securing biodiversity within the England Biodiversity Strategy. The targets outcomes emphasise the importance of a strategic, landscape scale view of conservation actions as outlined in the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper. LNPs could potentially have a significant role to play in the local delivery of the Biodiversity 2020 targets and contributing to Biodiversity 2020 targets outcomes is a part of many partnerships’ goals / priorities.

Although contributing to specific Biodiversity 2020 targets under Outcome 1 of the strategy is a priority area for many LNPs the majority are not currently doing so, but expect that they could potentially have an influencing role in the future. LNP strategies and priorities complement the aims of Biodiversity 2020, and LNPs consider that they are likely to make some strategic influencing contributions to meeting the aims but are unlikely to be involved in related delivery work. Several LNPs cited biodiversity offsetting as an area where they would like to provide a strategic role to contribute to Biodiversity 2020 but they are not sure what that role might entail. Other LNP participants highlighted how their LNP would contribute to Biodiversity 2020 by restoring habitats, influencing the development of new environmental land management schemes, and contributing to NIAs and other ecological networks. A significant proportion of LNPs stated that there are insufficient resources available to undertake a delivery role, but that their partnership will have an effect by improving collaboration and coordination between its members.

LNPs that are currently working towards Biodiversity 2020 outcomes are involved in a range of projects, many of which relate to habitat restoration or improvement. Such LNPs typically have a biodiversity action group that include individuals and organisations involved in local biodiversity work prior to their involvement with LNPs, for example as part of LBAPs (Local Biodiversity Action Plans). Several LNP participants involved in work contributing to Biodiversity 2020 considered that it is too early to consider the impact of LNPs as it would take at least two years for any effects to become apparent.

Several LNPs plan on delivering on Biodiversity 2020 outcomes in the future but have not yet determined how this will occur, what exactly they will do, or how it will be funded. While LNP participants agreed that Biodiversity 2020 outcomes are important and that LNPs have a role to play, they have been focused on establishing the LNP and have not had the opportunity to consider the specific initiatives the LNP will work on.

In addition to their work with LNPs, some LNP participants are also working towards Biodiversity 2020 outcomes independently of the LNP. This work often includes delivery, for example, working as part of NIAs.

A5.3.8 The added value of LNPs

4 of 35 of LNPs considered that the achievements of their LNP (identified in Figure A5.14) would not have happened in the absence of the LNP, and 9 of 35 considered that only a few achievements would have been achieved in the absence of the LNP. 4 of 35 stated that most of the achievements of their LNP would have been achieved in the absence of the LNP, and 15 of 35 stated that some of the achievements of their LNP would have happened anyway in the absence of the LNP.

The opinions of LNP members about LNPs’ added value are similar; around a fifth of LNP members think LNPs have had some added value, another fifth think added value has been minimal, and around half think some LNP achievements would have happened anyway but that the LNP contributed in some way (Figure A5.15).

The majority of chairpersons and coordinators consider that LNPs’ added value has been limited to date, and most stated that it is too early to consider added value. Both types of respondents pointed to the amount of resources and time necessary to establish governance structures, identify priorities


49

and prepare a strategy, much of which was either finished recently by LNPs or, in some cases, is still underway. In this context, the LNPs considered it is soon to expect impacts over and above those that might have happened anyway. LNPs are confident that they will add value in the future, if they obtain sufficient support, such as funding for a dedicated coordinator and sufficient status to be recognised by other local stakeholders (such as LEPs).

Many of the LNPs were formed based on pre-existing partnerships or networks, such as LBAPs, and all LNP participants are involved with organisations working on issues related to LNP objectives. Many LNP participants were already involved in initiatives related to the natural environment and were already working with other LNP participants. Respondents commented that much of the work they are involved in with the LNP is a continuation or elaboration of the work they had been involved in anyway. The added value of the LNP is to improve strategic coordination between LNP participants, something most felt was missing. For example, one respondent commented that there has been a gap in ‘strategic thinking’ about the natural environment since regional development agencies were dissolved. The respondent said that LNPs are a means to increase the profile of environmental issues and improve collaboration between organisations working on those issues.

Respondents commented that LNPs could potentially deliver impacts and achievements in the future that would be over and above what would occur in the absence of the LNP. The respondents considered that by broadening the scope of LNPs to include sectors and organisations not typically involved with managing the natural environment, LNPs will become more secure and have more of an influence than they have now, and more influence than historic networks or initiatives had in the past. The reason for this is that LNPs have senior decision makers on board, and these people are able to influence other organisations and raise the profile of the LNP. However the potential offered by LNPs is contingent on them obtaining the funding to sustain core services, such as a dedicated coordinator. Most respondents thought that without a coordinator in place the LNPs are likely to decrease in significance and relevance.

Figure A5.15 The majority of LNPs and LNP members consider that LNPs have yet to add value, but are likely to do so in the future

Q20: To what extent do you think the achievements noted in your previous answers would have been achieved in the absence of the LNP?




Most would have been

achieved, 4

Some would have been

achieved, 15

Only a few

would have been

achieved , 9

None would have been

achieved, 4

No option selected,

3

LNPsMost would have been

achieved, 7


achieved, 18

Only a few

would have been

achieved , 8


achieved, 1

No option selected,

6

LNP members


50

Most interviewees considered that involvement with the LNP has had a significant impact on their organisation (Figure A5.16). Significant impacts relate mainly to increasing visibility of what other organisations are working on, and helping to communicate to others about the work undertaken by their organisation. LNPs also provide participants with access to a wider network of organisations. Some negative impacts were also identified, mainly related to the resources required to establish and maintain LNPs. A lower proportion of LNP members considered that LNPs had a significant impact on their organisation, but around half (21 of 40 LNP members) agreed that there had been some impact.

Selected examples of positive and negative impacts include:

■ Positive

– Involvement with the LNP provides the opportunity to re-evaluate and re-enforce to senior management and elected members about organisational priorities that match LNP priorities.

– Helping to promote natural environment issues within the organisation, and demonstrate that enhancing the natural environment can complement economic growth.

– Enabled a countywide climate change strategy, including bidding for funding and including projects in the organisations EU investments strategy.

– Enhancing understanding of what the organisation’s partners are working on.

– Brought regional recognition to a priority area the organisation is working on, helping to direct small amounts of funding towards staffing and projects. The LNP also helped to provide valuable information on initiatives and funding opportunities.

■ Negative

– More work to set up and run the LNP but no additional resource to do so.

– The LNP has been a significant drain on time and money.

– The LNP has taken up a lot of staff time and has been very frustrating at times.

Figure A5.16 The impact of the LNP on participating organisation

Q21: To what extent has involvement in the LNP had an impact on your own organisation? Involvement in the LNP has had:

N = 47 (24 coordinators, 23 chairpersons) N = 40 LNP members

The figure is based on LNP chairpersons’ and coordinators’ survey responses. A response was

The figure is based on LNP member survey responses. A response was

Significant impact, 3

Some impact, 21

Not very much impact, 11

No impact, 4

No response, 1

LNP members


Some impact, 15


No response,

5

LNP chairperson and coordinators


51

provided by 47 chairpersons and coordinators. provided by 40 LNP members.

A minority of LNPs has made good progress or completed an evaluation plan (3 and 6 of 35 LNPs respectively) (Figure A5.8). The majority of LNPs have started but are still at an early stage (14 of 35), while almost a third (10 of 35) have no plans to prepare an evaluation plan. It will be difficult to determine the added value of LNPs unless the majority of LNPs have an evaluation plan, and the necessary resources, in place.

LNP participants acknowledged the benefits of having an evaluation plan in place, but suggested that there were not enough resources available to evaluate LNP impacts and achievements. Several LNP participants pointed to the difficulty of attempting to evaluate the strategic influencing role of the LNP, suggesting that it was likely to be almost impossible to determine the added value of LNPs with respect to awareness-raising, for example.

Suggestions about how to evaluate LNPs included assessing whether the LNP is in existence or not in several years’ time. As LNPs develop their continued existence will depend on how successful they are at obtaining funding and whether they are deemed to be worthwhile by LNP participants. Several respondents suggested that whether particular LNPs are still going in several years will indicate whether they are successful.

Other suggested evaluation criteria include whether an LNP has secured funding for either core services, or for specific projects. Securing funding is key to the success of LNPs and was suggested as an indicator of whether LNP participants are working well together and having an impact on participating organisations. LNP participants also suggested that it would be useful to have a set of common evaluation criteria that all LNPs could include in their evaluation plans. Doing so would, in their opinion, help to evidence the combined impact of all 48 LNPs and demonstrate that LNPs are a worthwhile initiative that deserve additional support from central government.

A5.3.9 The future role for LNPs depends on funding and credibility

LNPs made frequent reference to the good progress they have made in establishing their respective partnerships, putting the necessary governance structures in place and identifying priorities. LNP participants acknowledge that LNP impacts have so far been limited, but were of the opinion that it was too early to consider impacts. Confidence is high that, with the right support, LNPs would start to make changes to the management and delivery of natural environment initiatives6.

LNP chairpersons and coordinators suggested that the work of LNPs could evolve so that LNPs have more of a role in local planning and development. A more significant role in coordinating natural environment initiatives and projects within and across administrative boundaries was also suggested.

However the nature and scale of LNPs’ role in the future is expected to depend on the resources available to them, and also on continued support from central government over the long term. The latter was identified as particularly important as it is considered to be necessary to ensure LNPs have the credibility and status necessary to influence other organisations. Several LNP participants stated that although LNPs are established and are starting to gain traction locally, without Defra’s continued support it is unlikely that they would continue. Defra’s support is necessary to give LNPs the credibility necessary to attract senior level appointments to the board, and to be taken seriously by local authorities, LEPs and other organisations. If Defra were to withdraw its support, for example if a change of government resulted in a change in Defra priorities, then the future of LNPs would be highly uncertain.

A few LNP participants stated that Defra could help to strengthen the LNP initiative by working with LNPs to set out a strategy for LNPs that describes their role and objectives. Doing so would, in their opinion, enable LNPs to function as a coherent national initiative with a higher profile than they have now working in isolation.

6 The detailed analysis of stakeholder consultation analysis will include the views of members about the future role and potential of LNPs.


52

A5.3.10 Future support needs identified by LNPs

The need most frequently cited by LNPs was funding for a dedicated coordinator to help manage and progress the work of the LNP. LNPs estimated that the amount of funding necessary to ensure the viability of the partnerships is on average £50,000 per year7.

LNPs frequently cited a need for clear guidance from central government, pointing to the guidance available to LEPs as an example of what is required. LNPs stated that there was a good amount of central government guidance during the initial LNP establishment stages, but that there was no clear vision or strategy for LNPs to work towards. Clear guidance about LNPs’ role and purpose would help them to work together as a coherent network, and help LNPs to demonstrate to other organisations what they are for and why they matter. LNPs suggested that Defra could usefully set out the vision for LNPs, what they are expected to achieve and examples of the governance structures or modes of working that might be expected to contribute towards achieving this vision. The LNPs stated that the lack of a strategic vision undermined the credibility and security of LNPs as it was not clear exactly what LNPs should be doing. Several respondents suggested that clearer guidance from Defra would facilitate better engagement with LEPs as it would demonstrate that LNPs are credible partnerships that have the support and backing of central government.

LNPs expect that contributions of staff time / expertise, funding and other support will be provided by a broad range of organisations (Figure A5.17, Figure A5.18 and Figure A5.19). Approximately half of responding LNPs expect to receive funding from LIFE+ (16 of 35), and a significant minority expect to receive funding from other UK and EU funds (14 of 35) and the Heritage Lottery Fund (13 of 35). Approximately a fifth of LNPs expect to receive funding from organisations in the health sector, and farmers / land owners / land managers (8 of 35 each).

19 of 35 LNPs expect that staff time / expertise will be provided by LEPs, and 17 of 35 expect that time / expertise will be provide by the Heritage Lottery Fund and local government. 15 of 35 LNPs expect that LIFE+, Defra delivery bodies and health / public health organisations will be a source of staff time / expertise.

28 of 35 LNPs expect Defra delivery bodies, local government, health / public health organisations, and environmental NGOs will provide other forms of support, for example, facilities for meetings and support with planning and coordination.

During the interviews, a significant number of chairpersons and coordinators highlighted the need for support for LNPs from across government. They stated that continued and increased support is vital to ensure that LNPs have the weight and status necessary to influence other organisations and have positive impacts on the natural environment. The support LEPs receive from central government was frequently cited as an example of what should be provided to LNPs. Several chairpersons and coordinators commented that central government should help to increase networking between LNPs. Doing so would, in their opinion, increase LNPs’ mandate by providing a means for LNPs to more clearly articulate what LNPs are for and why they matter.

LNPs offered examples of how central government could help to strengthen the credibility of LNPs:

■ Providing LNPs with a clearer policy strategy that LNPs are an important government priority and LEPs and LAs should cooperate with them.

■ Raise awareness at a national level about LNPs and what their role is.

■ Designate LNPs as a statutory consultee for LAs and LEPs.

■ Ensure LEPs had a duty to cooperate with LNPs and demonstrate how LNP concerns are reflected in LEP plans and strategies.

■ Allocate LNPs something specific and concrete to do, that is, give them a specific purpose. For example a formal role in biodiversity offsetting, or sponsoring LIFE bids.

■ Obtain support from other government departments such as BIS and CLG.

■ National level representation for LNPs, such as national LNP network that could contribute to policy development and engage with other national networks, such as the LEP network.

7 The minimum estimate was £10,000 the maximum estimate was £300,000. The median estimate was £39,000.


53

■ Allocate funding for LNPs to maintain core support services, such as a coordinator and an active website.

Increasing the LNPs’ credibility would, in the opinion of LNP participants, help LNPs to obtain funding from other sources and have a more significant influence on other organisations.

Figure A5.17 Future support expected from organisations / sectors: funding

Q26: What kinds of support do you anticipate you will receive from the following organisations/sectors in the future?

N = 35 LNPs


16

14

13

8

8

5

5

4

4

3

2

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Life+


Big Lottery Fund




Community groups

LEPs

Education/Research

Environmental NGOs



No. of LNPs

Funding


54

Figure A5.18 Future support expected from organisations / sectors: staff time / expertise

Q26: What kinds of support do you anticipate you will receive from the following organisations / sectors in the future?

N = 35 LNPs


19

17

17

15

15

15

14

11

10

7

6

4

2

0 5 10 15 20

LEPs


Local government

Life+




Environmental NGOs

Big Lottery Fund


Education/Research


Community groups

No. of LNPs

Staff time / expertise


55

Figure A5.19 Future support expected from organisations / sectors: other

Q26: What kinds of support do you anticipate you will receive from the following organisations / sectors in the future?

N = 35 LNPs


A5.4 Impacts

The overall LNP intervention logic in Section 4.2 identifies three main impacts that LNPs are working towards:

■ An improved natural environment.

■ A stronger green economy.

■ Stronger connections between people and nature.

These impacts correspond to the overall themes of the Natural Environment White Paper. Over time, LNPs are working to achieve improvements in the natural environment, a stronger green economy and stronger connections between people and nature. However, the activities of LNPs focus on influencing the range of different actors and processes that effect change over time; as a result the impacts of LNP activities are indirect, sometimes unpredictable and difficult to attribute to the work of the LNPs themselves.

It is therefore unlikely, at this early stage in the LNPs’ development, that the benefits of their activities will be observable through their ultimate impacts. Instead, many LNP achievements will be expressed in terms of outcomes, for example improvements in joint working, influencing and strategic coordination, rather than impacts. However it is important to consider impacts, as the overarching purpose of LNPs is contribute towards environmental improvements, enhance the green economy and strengthen the connection between people and nature.

It is therefore not surprising that limited evidence of LNPs contributing to these impacts is available at this stage. LNPs are generally at a relatively early stage in their development, and even those that are more advanced have typically not been involved with outcome-related activities for very long. LNPs

29

29

29

28

27

26

26

24

20

4

3

2

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Environmental NGOs


Local government




Education/Research

Community groups

LEPs



Life+

Big Lottery Fund

No. of LNPs

Other


56

are more likely to have impacts over a 5 to 10 year period. Although it is difficult to assign causality between LNPs and impacts, it is reasonable to assume that impacts are more likely to be achieved as additional LNPs achieve the outcomes discussed in the previous section.


57

Annex 6 Thematic discussion papers

This section includes the discussion papers prepared as part of the thematic evaluation. Draft papers were prepared in advance of a series of thematic workshops to provide the basis of discussions on issues selected by LNPs and informed by the interim evaluation findings.

The draft papers were revised and amended based on the discussions during the thematic workshops and also through additional desk research on each thematic topic. The revised discussion papers were circulated among workshop participants and LNP chairpersons and coordinators for their comment during August 2014.

The final set of discussion papers, presented below, cover the following topics:

■ Natural capital: Making the economic case for investing in the natural environment.

■ Biodiversity offsetting: what is the LNP’s role?

■ LNPs’ role in identifying new and enhancing existing ecological networks.

■ LNP funding and resources: examples from LNPs.

■ LNPs and the local health sector: working together to protect and enhance the natural environment and deliver positive health outcomes.

■ LNPs and LEPs: working together to protect and enhance the natural environment and strengthen the economy.

■ LNPs’ mandate.


58

A6.1 Natural capital: Making the economic case for investing in the natural environment

This paper covers how LNPs could potentially make the economic case for investing in the natural environment.

This paper includes a brief overview of the concept of natural capital, a summary of the findings of the LNP evaluation as they relate to natural capital, a review of specific challenges related to natural capital, and a review of examples of how LNPs that have successfully employed a natural capital approach. The paper also explores who LNPs could collaborate with, and what types of evidence could be used.

The paper is based on an evidence review, interviews with LNPs and a workshop with LNPs about applying a natural capital approach and subsequent desk research.

A6.1.1 Policy background

Natural capital is an integrating concept, designed to convey the interdependencies between the natural environment and economic activity. This draws on concepts from the financial sector so as to establish the idea of the natural environment as a valuable ‘stock’ of resources to be maintained or to grow over time- in much the same way as financial capital can appreciate or depreciate in value depending on its use. Natural capital represents the stock of wealth derived from the natural economy, the benefits it provides are considered in terms of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are the benefits derived from natural capital. Applying the financial concept, natural capital is the ‘stock’, and ecosystem services the ‘flow’ of returns derived from the stock. Investing in natural capital can provide a cost-effective solution to local challenges by protecting the source of natural environment benefits utilised by local communities and businesses (Figure A6.1).

Figure A6.1 Local economies are likely to benefit from investments in natural capital

Stewardship of the natural environment is a responsibility for society at large as much as for public and private sector organisations, particularly given the importance of local knowledge of the natural capital that supports biodiversity and ecosystem services. Moreover, measures to conserve Natural capital may result in a range of benefits to local communities as well as a society at large - GDP from the natural heritage tourism economy is £4.5 billion, with direct employment of 119,000 people, whilst charities such as the Royal Society of Woodland Trusts and the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts each have annual turnovers of over £30 million (GLNP, 2013). Civil society groups have a key role in evidencing and communicating these benefits to collaborators and supporters at both the national and local scale, which can help secure ongoing political and financial support for their endeavours.

Given that knowledge of ecosystem services is often rooted in local values and context, there is a need to ‘talk the language’ of policymakers - linking initiatives undertaken at the local level to wider priorities in terms of driving economic growth and employment opportunities. At the same time, these

Tourism

Food / crops

Mining

Freshwater fisheries

Recreation

Marine fisheries

Local economy

Provides inputs and services to…

Natural Capital

Ecosystem services

Ecosystem goods

NATURAL STOCKS

Impacts on…


59

benefits may be too intangible to attract local stakeholders, so there is a need to frame these benefits in terms of direct and meaningful impacts on local communities and businesses. Engaging local businesses from an early stage within the identification of local natural capital and ecosystem services will help to promote the long-term sustainability of these initiatives. Table A6.1 sets out the different type of ecosystem services in the UK and provides examples of the goods (benefits) provided.

Table A6.1 Ecosystem services in the UK, classified according to ecosystem service

Ecosystem processes / intermediate services

Final ecosystem services (example of goods)

Supporting services

Primary production Soil formation Nutrient cycling Water cycling

Provisioning services

Crops, livestock, fish (food)

Trees, standing vegetation, peat, (fibre, energy, carbon sequestration)

Water supply (domestic and industrial water

Wild species diversity (bio-prospecting, medical plants)

Decomposition Weathering

Climate regulation Pollination

Disease and pest regulation Ecological interactions Evolutionary processes Wild species diversity

Cultural services Wild species diversity (recreation)

Environmental settings (recreation, tourism, spiritual/religious)

Regulating services Climate regulation (equitable climate)

Pollination

Detoxification and purification in soils, air and water (pollution control)

Hazard regulation (erosion control, flood control)

Noise regulation (noise control)

Disease and pest regulation (disease and pest control)

Source: UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).

The focus of most policy activity relating to Natural capital in England has been at the national level - initiatives such as the National Ecosystem Assessment and the Natural Environment White Paper have been pivotal in underlining the contribution of a healthy natural environment to the wellbeing of society as a whole. More recently, initiatives such as the Ecosystems Market Taskforce have explicitly addressed the link between environmental investments and opportunities for the development of new goods and services that can drive economic growth, identifying areas such as catchment management and forestry where there are shared interests between different stakeholders and opportunities for the public and private sectors to work collaboratively.

The Government’s Natural Capital Committee (NCC) is the key voice for the maintenance of Natural capital as a national policy priority, and one shared across all areas of Government - including the Treasury. The outputs of NCC discussions in terms of recommendations for defining, measuring and taking steps to maintain Natural capital attract increasing attention across a range of public and private organisations at the national level, but there remains a key need to translate these recommendations into meaningful actions at the local or landscape scale.

The Government’s Natural Environment White Paper (2011) established the need for a more integrated, landscape approach to management of the natural environment. Natural capital is complementary to this focus by emphasising the range of benefits provided by a common area of landscape, and incentivising a coordinated response. However, methods and support for assessing these benefits remain largely focused on specific benefits or elements of Natural capital, with relatively little support for comprehensive landscape-scale assessments. Guidance on how to integrate such ‘place-based’ with national scale assessments is scarce, but beginning to emerge through a handful of projects and initiatives. New institutional partnerships which can support the identification of


60

environment-economy links include Nature Improvement Areas, as well as the Catchment-based approach, which was piloted in 2012 to involve local people and business in coordinated actions to secure multiple benefits from river catchments.

The Natural capital Committee has recognised some of the issues inherent in assessing natural capital at a local scale, and has suggested that the Broad Habitat types used within the NEA provide just one set of metrics- with value metrics and land-use categories also providing useful starting points for analysis in some cases. Nonetheless, the NCC recognises that further development and translation of this framework may be necessary at the local scale.

Identifying the benefits of natural capital may involve tracing the ecosystem services flowing from a landscape feature. In other cases, it may involve stakeholders identify the benefits of the natural environment before considering the dependency of these benefits on ecosystems and natural capital. LNPs can play a mediating role in this process, providing a link between local economic interests (for example, ecosystem service benefits) and conservation interests (for example, species and landscape management). LNPs could also promote or help to coordinate data collection activities.

Figure A6.2 Processes for identifying Ecosystem Services

Source: Natural capital Committee (2013)

A6.1.2 Findings from the LNP Evaluation and Discussion Groups

The concept of natural capital aims to covey the agenda of LNPs in a way that is relevant to business and economic decision-makers. It provides a framework for defining, measuring, investing in and monitoring natural assets and their importance to the local economy over time. It is a concept that is being applied nationally and can be translated at the local level. Healthy soils, for example, provide a better carbon sink but also better-quality and more nutritious local foods.

The findings of the evaluation suggest that LNPs are generally familiar with the concept of natural capital but are often uncertain about how to demonstrate the potential economic benefits of investing in the environment. During the interviews several LNP chairpersons and coordinators stated that they do not have enough resources to gather the evidence required to define the ‘stock’ of natural capital and the ‘flow’ of benefits in their local area.

Similarly, LNPs suggested that it is often expensive and laborious to demonstrate how an intervention to protect and enhance the natural environment will result in changes to the stock of natural capital or


61

flow of natural capital-derived benefits. One problem is a lack of established methods for assessing and accounting of these benefits owing to their context-specific nature- it can be difficult to transfer knowledge and expertise from one setting to another and often in-depth consultation processes are required to establish values, contributing significantly to costs.

Participants highlighted the importance of the UK’s geodiversity as a relatively neglected area of discussion that plays a crucial role in many designated landscapes- with a growing number of ‘geoparks’ (a UNESCO classification) emerging in the UK. Given the level of income that such areas generate for the wider economy, it could be possible to source support from local businesses to support administration or further publicity of these areas.

Table A6.2 Key elements of natural capital and the potential role for LNPs

Key elements of Natural capital Role for LNPs

Communicating the benefits of the natural environment in economic terminology

Focusing on tangible development priorities at the local authority level- e.g. impacts on local property prices- regeneration benefits

Establishing the link between a landscape feature its benefits/beneficiaries

Initiating a workshop or discussion group to prompt an evaluation of the range of benefits this landscape feature brings to the community

Mapping ecosystem service benefits against landscape features to indicate opportunities and risks

Understanding short-term and long-term risks to species and habitats

Integrating data management activities with local monitoring processes to understand specific local drivers of environmental change

Establishing compensation for efforts to maintain Natural capital

Promoting local food and products that provide income for management activities

Providing a link between land owners/managers and environmental experts

Providing a link to UK/EU policy, and associated funding opportunities

Evaluating impacts on natural resources and heritage arising from development

Input within planning approval processes, emphasising the opportunities of environmental investment

Understanding links between interest groups

Highlighting links between management practices and ecosystem service benefits through mapping- identifying areas for collaborative actions (eg. water, forestry, agriculture).

Participants in the thematic workshop highlighted the range of ways in which LNPs can promote the concept of natural capital:

■ Use stories that are tangible and engaging. ■ Use clear examples. ■ Show cost-effective ways of helping business. ■ Explain cost-effective ways of helping nature. ■ Learn from examples (and barriers and opportunities) as more emerge.

LNPs are well-placed to play an educational, awareness-raising role around natural capital, as their membership typically bridges the public, private and charitable sectors and the specific interests and terminology of these sectors.

Main successes

Natural capital provides a common framework for addressing the links between environment and economy. However, processes for establishing these links are not standardised and draws on a combination of local knowledge and technical or expert knowledge at national scales. LNPs that have achieved successful delivery of natural capital projects have generally recognised their own limitations from the outset and played a coordinating or advisory role, together with other local partners more actively involved in consultation and data collection activities.


62

An iterative approach, beginning with a broad strategic overview of links between environment and economy at the local scale provides a means to engaging new partners in the collection of evidence.

LNP experience of engaging with assessment and valuation of natural capital is relatively limited. There are several examples of small-scale initiatives at the landscape or community level that demonstrate how LNPs may provide the role of an intermediary between local interests in the assessment stage of natural capital projects

In these examples, the role of LNPs mostly relates to communication and awareness-raising: highlighting natural capital as a common link between local interests such as resource efficiency and waste management. This communication process can also contribute to the local evidence base for natural capital, which can allow local businesses and partners to develop their own responses and strategies relating to natural capital.

Box 1 Lewes and Ouse Valley eco‐nomics group

The Lewes and Ouse Valley eco-nomics group has attracted significant attention at the national level through channels such as the Valuing Nature Network and the Ecosystems Knowledge Network as a strong example of engaging local enterprise around the concept of natural capital and ecosystem services. A coordinated action financed under the local Nature Improvement Area, the focus is on a 5km area around Lewes town centre, encompassing a range of public and private landowners and groups leasing them such as the Railway and Wildlife Trust, community associations and sundry businesses of all sizes including independents and large multiples such as Tesco, Waitrose, Aldi and Pizza Express, as well as local farmers.

A workshop process has been developed that allows participants within the Lewes Community to visualise the links between human wellbeing and the local environment via provision of ecosystem services, through a range of thematic examples such as the ‘Town to Down’ project, the ‘Valuing the Chalk’ initiative and planned ‘Surface to Groundwater’ and ‘Walk the Chalk’ initiatives. Structuring these projects around a common theme or landscape focus provides benefits for awareness-raising and communication ahead of more in-depth analysis of ecosystem services within the workshop setting, and a discussion group relating to the project has been developed on the Transition Town website and other social media channels.

The project utilised funding provided through a local NIA to raise awareness among local businesses and contribute to the long-term financial sustainability of the initiative. The purpose of the awareness raising was to make the case for local businesses to promote and contribute to management of natural capital.

The stakeholder processes and criteria developed as part of the completed projects may be adapted for ‘roll-out’ across surrounding areas, such as South Downs National Park, Brighton, Hove and Lewes

The Local Environment and Economic Development toolkit (LEED) is one example of how opportunities relating to the natural environment can be integrated within the early stages of new developments, incentivising close collaboration between LEPs and LNPs. The Toolkit draws upon expert knowledge from the Defra network and external consultants, and includes local knowledge via Local Commissioning Consortia. Through their coordinating role between local and national stakeholders, LNPs may play an important role in the collection of evidence about environment-economy links.

Box 2 North Yorkshire and York LNP: Linking the natural environment to an economic strategy

North Yorkshire and York (NY&Y) LNP provide a strong model of how natural capital can be integrated in a strategic manner within local agendas so as to promote engagement with LEPs and other local business interests. In particular, the LNP has opted to focus on two key areas that are of fundamental importance to the local context- small-scale economic growth and rural development- and to look for areas where these converge with a natural capital approach.

One defining aspect of the collaboration with the local LEP is that this was highly personal from the outset- since LEPs have more resources than LNPs but a broader scope, it was necessary to target ‘key people’ within the LEP who then acted as an advocate for the natural capital approach within the partnership. One core area where links have been built up over time is through collaboration on a £250,000 LEADER programme, focusing primarily on tourism, skills and farming (specifically, environmental outcomes and efficiency of farming and land management).


63

Support from local civil society groups has been important, but key success factors have been:

■ A positive and proactive orientation from the start.

■ Understanding LEP needs and trying to speak the same language.

■ Using different ‘entry points’ by building relationships with LEP members.

The level of engagement (and resources required) can be tailored to the specific context and resources of the local Commissioning Group. Useful economic data are provided as outputs from each stage, which can be beneficial for securing additional support for subsequent stages. Where LEPs are less engaged in environmental issues, LNPs could lead Commissioning Groups and to draw together the existing evidence to strengthen the case for including environment in economic strategies.

Box 3 Wild Anglia (Local Environment and Economic Development Toolkit)

Wild Anglia LNP recently participated in a pilot project, together with New Anglia LEP and Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils, for an ecosystem services assessment toolkit (the Local Environment and Economic Development (LEED) toolkit) designed to help LEPs and Local Authorities meet their economic growth targets by fully realising the role that the natural environment can play. The pilot was conducted in the context of New Anglia’s Green Economy Manifesto, which considered in detail how environment can contribute to growth and how this information could be better integrated a Strategic Economic Plan, which targets creation of 80,000 additional jobs and 10,000 additional businesses by 2015.

The toolkit was developed by the Defra network (EA, Natural England and the Forestry Commission) and is designed to systematically consider the evidence relating to the local economy/environment relationship in order to reveal opportunities and threats and consider appropriate responses. The toolkit produces accessible, non-technical outputs that can assist strategic economic decision-making, feeding into a SWOT analysis. Ecosystem services are evaluated alongside more ‘mainstream’ economic concerns such as resource efficiency and waste management. Environmental benefits are also defined in the counterfactual, that is, the impact on the economic activity if a given ecosystem function was lost. Another benefit of the process was building understanding of beneficiaries, with the highest opportunities being associated with the development of markets for local food produce, for example.

Based on Wild Anglia’s implementation of the tool, they found that it highlighted strategic and operational factors which required cooperation between local bodies (for example, investment in Green Infrastructure for flood protection benefits and a LEP-wide defence system against invasive species or diseases), and helped build good working relationships. A local Water Management Partnership Group was established as one outcome of the process, for example. Data outputs included a mind map showing relationships between opportunities and threats:

A range of local organisations can become involved in the assessment and delivery of the toolkit through a consortium approach that facilitates interaction between technical experts and a Local Commissioning Consortium.

The tool can be tailored to the specific need, capacities and levels of engagement. There are of three levels of engagement:

■ Level 1 is expected to involve 3 days of secretariat time including a one-day workshop and will produce an initial assessment of threats and opportunities.

■ Level 2 is expected to involve 25 days and uses interviews to develop more sophisticated findings.

■ Level 3 focuses on the development of a robust evidence base to support the identification of opportunity and threats and any resulting decisions. This is expected to take 50 days work.

LEPs can start with Level 1 and then decide if there is benefit is undertaking Level 2, and then similarly for Level 3. Each level will provide outputs that can be used to inform economic planning

The Toolkit has been successfully trialled with a range of other LEPs (Worcester, Staffordshire and Cornwall/Isles of Scilly), and Defra specialist support will be offered to 6 additional piloting LEPs/LNPs.

Other notable examples include the Greater Manchester Natural capital Group (GMNCG), which has developed a more targeted approach to coordinating activities across green infrastructure, waterways and biodiversity within 7 key spatial priority areas. The Greater Manchester LNP has leveraged the position of the GMNCG within Manchester’s high-profile Low Carbon Hub to build on established links


64

and understandings between environment and economy, in much the same way as the LEEP Toolkit links ecosystem services to resource efficiency assessment to build in credibility and understanding. In this way, Natural capital accounting is seen as merely ‘the next link in the chain’ of existing resource efficiency and not a new undertaking.

Box 4 Valuing Surrey: Making the economic case for nature at the county level

The Valuing Surrey Project is a collaborative project between Surrey Nature Partnership and Surrey Connects at the county level, together with Bioregional and the Aldersgate Group, with a focus on assessing and valuing Surrey’s natural capital. The decision was taken to examine natural capital, as opposed to ecosystem services, since the project’s focus is on communicating the existing value of Surrey’s landscape as a means to influence decisions.

The project consists of three phases: the first phase, a gap analysis of existing work at local, national, and international levels, considered strategically what an assessment of natural capital at this level would need to achieve. This process was crucially aided by communication pieces that frame the concept of natural capital to different audiences, sometimes drawing on storytelling approaches.

The second phase (currently in progress) focuses on the development of a series of scenarios for the management of natural capital at the county level, focusing on areas of risk and opportunity. The final phase will disseminate the evidence used by organisations across Surrey in their decision-making, as well as dissemination of results at the World Forum on Natural Capital in November 2014. This framework is intended to address concerns of scale with practical communication by linking the collection of data and discussion of the natural capital concept to local areas and economic concerns, whilst raising awareness of the importance of the natural environment to new audiences. The process of tailoring It is hoped that this could provide a model for LEP-LNP partnership working to other regions.

Main challenges

Interviews with LNP representatives indicates that the main challenge for engagement with Natural capital projects lies in achieving ‘buy-in’ from LEPs with a clear strategic view of economic opportunities and risks, so as to link these factors to environmental considerations. Disconnect of beneficiaries such as landowners from the concept of natural capital remains a major problem. Often, communication is the major challenge- whilst the concept of natural capital is intended to provide a link between environmental and economic interests, in many cases environmental investments are still perceived as a constraint, rather than opportunity, for local economic development. Addressing this perception requires the production of concrete and locally-relevant examples.

Another challenge is the general nature of these assessments and the difficulty of assessing natural capital at the local scale. Policy support and research grants tend to focus on specific elements of natural capital (for example, water, forestry, etc.) rather than supporting the landscape-level focus of LNPs. A lack of consistent standards and methodologies compounds this problem.

Since original data collection activities are impractical for LNPs, collection of evidence should be aligned with the specific knowledge and activities of other partners. However, establishing effective partnerships is often fraught with difficulty- complex or overlapping administrative boundaries are a common concern, as is the reluctance of certain stakeholders to provide necessary information owing to reputational concerns.

Barriers

■ Natural capital is a complex concept, and often somewhat nebulous- it is a challenge to communicate. Lack of consistent standards and methodologies compounds these problems.

■ Many businesses still fail to see the links and dependencies between nature and business growth.

■ Disconnect of beneficiaries (for example, landowners) from the concept of natural capital remains a key problem- there are attitudinal barriers to overcome in this regard- people don’t see why this should be monetised or compensated.

■ Funding and resources to undertake surveys and deliver actions is a common challenge for LNPs.


65

■ For some LNPs, complex or overlapping administrative boundaries (eg. multiple Local Authorities, LEP or LNP overlap) represent a major practical challenge for realising landscape-scale natural capital projects.

■ Natural capital projects require access to a range of information from stakeholders- some of which may not be forthcoming due to perceived reputational risks.

■ Establishing effective partnerships for delivery of natural capital projects is key but often fraught with difficulty.

Opportunities

■ LNPs need to focus on finding ‘hooks’ for natural capital- shared areas of interest that are critical for business success and can be expanded over time

■ Natural capital can point to innovative financing that could offset reductions in other environmental expenditure and support Biodiversity 2020 objectives

■ LNPs could be more strategic in the partners they target- for example, local businesses could be profiled on the basis of their existing sustainability credentials (awards, press coverage etc.) to ensure that sympathetic organisations are prioritised

■ Thinking creatively about compensation measures (for example, payment in kind or community engagement) could highlight a wider range of possibilities than PES measures alone

■ LNPs should examine the potential for providing service contracts to public and private sector organisations. Examples such as the Peatland Code highlight the reputational benefits to the private sector for participating in such schemes. LNPs could provide advisory services to such schemes, top-slicing revenue to support their operating costs

■ Often, bigger businesses have more time and resources to engage with natural capital projects. They also have additional incentives to do so, such as reputational incentives

■ Natural capital projects can help identify previously unrecognised or potential benefits and point to ways in which cost savings can be achieved (for example, through managed realignment projects)

■ Natural capital has significant potential to bring together diverse stakeholders and align a range of interests. LNPs should work towards multiple-benefit solutions

■ Natural capital has a strong link to other important agendas such as health and wellbeing, and outdoor activity that could be capitalised on

A6.1.3 Areas for discussion

Who to collaborate with?

Experience from successful delivery of successful natural capital projects suggests that the optimal role for LNPs is a coordination role, linking LEPs and Local Authorities to sources of environmental information at the local and national levels through established networks. Doing so should help to provide a strategic overview of local environment-economy links. Once the evidence base has been gathered, more ad-hoc forms of partnership delivery may emerge to focus on the maintenance of specific benefits or elements of natural capital. LNPs need to focus on finding ‘hooks’ for natural capital- shared areas of interest that are critical for business success and can be expanded over time.

Most existing natural capital assessments have benefited from a LEP with a clear interest in identifying environment-economy linkages, or another consortium linked to a clear source of financing such as a Nature Improvement Area. By contrast, many LNPs report a limited engagement with environmental issues amongst LEPs, as well as difficulties in LEP-LNP working which may be rooted in the perceived lack of credibility arising from the unfunded status of most LNPs.

LNPs need to think creatively and strategically about the type of organisations and projects that could contribute to better understanding of environment and economy links.

Most LNPs do not have resources to undertake original analysis of these links, so these activities should be integrated within existing projects wherever possible. Local research institutions and universities are a natural starting point for collaboration, given the knowledge-intensive nature of


66

natural capital and the links of these institutions to established grant and funding sources: partnering on a local natural capital assessment study could provide opportunities to apply for research funding. Crucially, LNPs can prioritise funding from small-scale, project-level investments towards landscape-level investments, realising efficiencies of scale.

Local businesses could be profiled on the basis of their existing sustainability credentials (to ensure that sympathetic organisations are targeted. Often, bigger businesses have more time, resources and reputational incentives to engage with the natural capital agenda. Similarly, thinking beyond Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes to other forms of compensation, such as payment in kind or community engagement could open up a wider range of possibilities.

Participants in the thematic workshop indicated that LNPs should examine the potential for providing service contracts to public and private sector organisations, citing examples such as the Peatland Code where the private sector has a clear reputational basis for participation. LNPs would provide advisory services under such a model, top-slicing revenue to support their operating costs.

National-level pilot projects, such as the LEED pilots, or monitoring programmes facilitated at the national level by the Defra network, are also a good starting point for evidence as well as specific support for local data collection activities. However, these programmes are often targeted at specific elements or benefits of natural capital rather than providing support to local-scale assessment. One promising area of collaboration is the Environment Agency’s Catchment Partnerships (see below). Thinking creatively about ‘blue-green’ links can help identify shared areas of interest between groups such as farmers and water utilities, but it can also point to new funding opportunities and consortia- Dean Park Nature Improvement Area, for example, recently secured £2.1m of support from the Catchment Restoration Fund for water quality improvements.

Engagement with organisations that have a proven track record of recognising and communicating nature’s benefits at a landscape scale, such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, are natural partners in the collection of this evidence base and communication of natural capital. Such organisations may also help to support the credibility of projects.

Box 5 Environment Agency‐ Catchment Restoration Fund and Catchment Pilots

One area of clear convergence between the work of LNPs and natural capital is in protection of freshwater resources. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) is the policy driver in this regard, and requires national governments to outline plans for achieving good qualitative and quantitative status of water bodies by 2015. In response to this increased understanding of the potential benefits of participatory catchment planning, undertaken with local stakeholders and knowledge providers, in 2011 Defra announced that the UK Government was committed to adopting a more ‘catchment-based approach’ to sharing information, working together and coordinating efforts to protect England’s water environment.

The outputs of the DEFRA Catchment Pilot Projects are presented on the Catchment Change Management Hub website (ccmhub.net) and reveal that the new partnerships created in many catchments were able to generate ambitious and comprehensive plans for the improvement of river ecological health and water quality.

What types of evidence to use?

It is important to consider the weight given to monetary evidence within most policy decisions at the national and local levels. However, not all data are amenable to monetisation and other types of quantifiable benefits are important to decision-makers, particularly at a local scale. Quantifying ecosystem services and their associated economic values is useful to communicate local-scale activities to national policymakers, but literacy around these issues often is often basic (at best) amongst local decision-makers, who may be more amenable to a general understanding of the links between environment and economic activity at the local level so as to target monitoring and resources more effectively.


67

Box 6 Valuing natural capital‐ a typology of methods

There are a range of means to assess and communicate the value of natural capital.

Market price measures use the market price of a traded product as indicative of the economic value of ecosystem goods or services.

Productivity approaches measure the contribution of natural capital to the production of a commercially-traded good (for example, drinking water).

Replacement cost methods estimate the hypothetical cost of replacing the services provided by an ecosystem if it were not available- for example, the cost of replacing pollination services provided by bees.

Damage cost or avoided cost methods similarly estimate (usually through secondary data) the costs of damage to physical infrastructure or management costs that would be incurred if a given element of natural capital were not in place.

Stated preference methods usually take the form of surveys asking respondents to make hypothetical choices between alternative environmental conditions and associated management costs (for example, in tax contributions). Based on the trade-offs respondents make, an implicit willingness-to-pay for the conservation of key elements of natural capital can be calculated.

Hedonic price methods measure the economic values of ecosystems that influence market prices of some other good- usually measures such as house prices

A more comprehensive overview is provided by Ecosystem Valuation: http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org

The LEED Toolkit emphasises the possibility of framing natural capital in broad, strategic terms that can be closely aligned with existing terminology and priorities for economic decision-makers (parameters such as opportunities and threats, opportunities for market development, etc.). Considering benefits in these general terms can strengthen the understanding and accessibility of natural capital concepts to a wider range of decision-makers, and reflects differing priorities at the local and national scales. This broader approach points to the potential to strengthen existing partnerships, and develop new partnerships, around the concept of natural capital.

National-scale data can be a useful starting point for discussion and communication about natural capital as it often includes extensive regionally-relevant data relating to economic benefits of nature that can be tailored and communicated in line with specific local conditions.

Box 7 Local house and property prices‐ a driver for environmental investment?

Many of the difficulties of translating the natural capital approach to the local scale lie in the abstract nature of the concept, as well as an ingrained perception amongst many local decision-makers that environmental protection can only act as a drag on economic growth and employment.

One of the most convincing means to address this perception at a local level is evidencing the link between local environmental improvement and people’s ‘willingness to pay’ for houses, or to invest in local businesses: this link is acknowledged implicitly by most developers and planners, resulting in small-scale landscaping and greening activities around developments, but there is a growing body of evidence addressing this link explicitly by ‘stripping out’ the added expenditure on property occurring as a result of proximity to green space; this added value is then seen to reflect people’s willingness to pay for the range of benefits this green space provides to them.

It follows that if we begin by evidencing the direct relationship between the local environment and property prices in monetary terms (for example, drawing on national data) we can begin to untangle some of the specific benefits of the environment that people value (for example, through interviews or discussion groups) and use this information to target investment in the environment so as to maximise the direct impact on house and property values.

The Micro-economic Benefits of Investing in the Environment report (Natural England, 2014) report provides the following logic chain for this relationship:

People value proximity to, and views of green space

Properties with these attributes attract a price premium


68

Improvement to green space or addition of new areas will increase property prices

It is important to consider that these benefits relate to relative, and not absolute, benefit to house and property prices. Nonetheless, such benefits may be welcomed by local authorities as a source of possible increases to the tax base and an indicator of relative economic performance- the value of such evidence for communicating the concept of Natural capital may be considerable.

Many local activities relating to natural capital have begun with a stakeholder workshop, or discussion group. However, this may be difficult given the lack of dedicated financial resources for LNPs, especially where goodwill from local organisations to participate voluntarily in discussions is not forthcoming.

Mapping broad links between landscape features, benefits and other economic activities is a relatively inexpensive activity, and can be developed over time as capacities and data improve. This can be a useful exercise for engaging new partners and identifying shared interests around environmental management activities- as the example of the LEED Toolkit underlines. The focus at this stage is less on detailed understanding of ecological processes and species dynamics, but on the shared dependencies between different aspects of the local environment and economic activity. The Lewes and Ouse Valley example points to how this process can be undertaken iteratively, drawing in local businesses interests.

At the same time, there is a wealth of existing valuation evidence at the national level (including the National Ecosystem Assessment) and LNPs can play a key role in communicating and adapting this evidence in a manner that is locally relevant. For example, Natural capital can be used as a framework for engaging with local property developers and local authorities around the idea of improving environmental amenities, beyond statutory requirements.

For cases where more robust economic data is needed, the application of secondary data to the local context through environmental value transfer can be beneficial, although benefits that accrue at national and global scales (for example, carbon sequestration) are often significantly more simple and reliable to transfer than values that concern local decision-makers, such as health improvement and access to cultural or historical resources. In many cases it may be more desirable to source basic information on these benefits locally (with a high degree of confidence) than to transfer more precise data from elsewhere (where there will be a lower degree of confidence in this information). Credibility of evidence is paramount within considerations of environment-economy links.

Explaining natural capital and the need to invest in nature can be conveyed through different narratives, depending on the audience. Economic terms and language will suit certain situations, whilst plain English will be preferable for non-specialist audiences. For example, ‘the things which nature provides for free’ (buffering floodwater, outdoor experiences, pollination) is a simpler way of explaining natural capital than more scientific terms and categories of ecosystem services.

A6.1.4 Information sources

Although there is a rapidly-expanding body of literature relating to the assessment and valuation of natural capital, utilising this information in a targeted and effective manner can be a challenge. There is a need to consider measurable and generalizable benefits of the environment (such as carbon sequestration) alongside more context-specific, locally-important values of the natural environment.

Potentially useful information sources are listed below:

■ Micro-Economic Benefits of Investing in the Environment (2014) is a recent literature review published by Natural England, assessing the small-scale economic impacts of Green Infrastructure interventions. The study is structured using the Ecosystems Approach and is specifically designed to demonstrate the economic case for investment in the natural environment to Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Authorities. The study provides a range of illustrative case studies to this end, ensuring the accessibility of data and terminology to a range of stakeholders.

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/32031

■ UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UNEP-WCMC, 2011) draws on many years of published studies relating to assessment and valuation of ecosystem services and combines these with ecological data from the Countryside Survey (2010). As such, values are defined as they occur


69

within the ‘Broad Habitat Types’ utilised by the CS. The NEA provides a valuable starting point for assessment of ecosystem services at the landscape scale, particularly for well-established benefits such as carbon sequestration. These data can be augmented by local data

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/

■ The TEEB for Local and Regional Policy Makers (2012) and TEEB for Business and Enterprise (2012) are two useful sources of guidance on how to source relevant and reliable information on the links between environmental trends and economy, and carry substantial weight with policy-makers. The classification of ecosystem services provided by the TEEB is the most widely-used internationally, and so can be thought of as something of a recognised ‘standard’ for assessing these benefits.

http://www.teebweb.org/publication/teeb-for-local-and-regional-policy-makers-2/

■ The Green Infrastructure Valuation Toolkit (Natural Economy Northwest, 2008) has been developed for specific assessment of environmental benefits within a context of urban and regional planning.

http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk

■ Barriers and Opportunities to the Use of Payments for Ecosystem Services (URS, 2011) provides a good overview of some of the issues inherent in assessing ecosystem services at a landscape scale, as well as guidance on how to address some of the institutional and communication barriers to facilitating PES. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=PESFinalReport28September2011(FINAL).pdf


70

A6.2 Biodiversity offsetting: what is the LNP’s role?

This paper covers LNPs’ potential role in biodiversity offsetting.

This paper includes a brief summary of the policy context and the potential role for LNPs in different biodiversity offsetting mechanisms. The paper is based on an evidence review, interviews with LNPs and a workshop with LNPs about biodiversity offsets and subsequent desk research. The workshop covered the following points:

■ Which structures and processes should be put in place to develop biodiversity offsets? ■ What could or should LNPs role be with regard to biodiversity offsetting? ■ What are the key obstacles and opportunities associated with biodiversity offsetting?

This paper starts with a brief overview of the policy background for biodiversity offsetting in England and then follows the three questions presented above.


Definition of biodiversity offsets

Defra defines biodiversity offsetting as ‘conservation activities that are designed to give biodiversity benefits to compensate for losses - ensuring that when a development damages nature (and this damage cannot be avoided or mitigated) new, bigger or better nature sites will be created. They are different from other types of ecological compensation as they need to show measurable outcomes that are sustained over time.’8

Biodiversity offsetting is considered by the UK Government as potentially providing a way to meet existing requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning regimes with regard to biodiversity and geological conservation.9

Current legal framework

The voluntary framework

There is currently no legal mandatory requirement for offsetting in the UK, beyond the EU Habitats Directive requirements for compensatory measures for impacts on Natura 2000 sites and on strictly protected species. When applied in England, biodiversity offsetting is voluntary. The current legal framework is relatively complex as biodiversity offsetting can be based on different methods for obtaining planning consent through compensation, and Defra is currently reviewing the existing legal framework.

The existing legal frameworks for the use of biodiversity offset in England are the following:

■ The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000), updated by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006), imposes what is known as the ‘Biodiversity Duty’ on certain public authorities –including local planning authorities (LPAs) – which requires that they must “have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of [their] functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”. This duty, along with associated requirements under the planning framework (see below) have resulted in some planning authorities seeking compensation for impacts on biodiversity, including the use of offsets.

■ In 2012, the Department for Local Communities and Government published the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)10. The NPPF states that the achievement of sustainable development includes ‘moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature [also referred to as No Net Loss (NLL)]’ (para 9) and that ‘the planning system should contribute to…minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible’ (para 118). Furthermore, paragraph 118 also states that “When determining planning applications,

8 https://www.gov.uk/biodiversity-offsetting 9 Section 11 of the NPPF on Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, paragraphs 109 to 119, is particularly relevant. The full NPPF is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf 10 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf


71

local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused”.

It could be argued that NNL is in effect mandatory, and that offsetting is also mandatory for significant residual impacts. Some local authorities, such as in Warwickshire (a pilot offset area), require developers to achieve NNL and carry out offsetting where necessary to do so. This approach is not applied in the majority of England as Local Plans, which are the primary consideration in planning decisions and need to provide the legal requirement for offsetting, are generally not yet NPPF.

In parallel to this, the UK government announced in its Natural Environment White Paper published in 201111, its intention to establish a new voluntary approach to biodiversity offsetting and test this in different pilot areas. In April 2012 Defra launched a two year national biodiversity offsetting pilot programme to test different approaches to offsetting. In parallel to the pilot programme, Defra is working with a range of organisations interested in biodiversity offsetting on complementary projects to improve their understanding of biodiversity offsetting and developing the evidence base.12

Despite encouragement from the Government and assurances that the scheme should not be an additional burden to businesses, the uptake of pilot offsets by developers has been poor, with a handful of projects in Warwickshire and North Tyneside expected to make use of offsetting. An independent evaluation of the pilot programmes and of the results of the complementary projects is currently being finalised and is expected to be published in the coming months.

Consideration of an offset framework

In addition to the pilot programme, Defra launched a public consultation on biodiversity offsetting in September 2013. The objective of this consultation was to gather opinions on the different biodiversity offsetting systems as proposed by the UK Government in its Biodiversity Offsetting Green Paper.13 The different options presented in the Green Paper are:

■ A fully permissive approach where developers could choose whether to use the offsetting metric to assess their project’s impacts and choose the means of securing compensation (i.e. through a section 106 agreement14 or by obtaining an offset);

■ A partially permissive approach where developers might be required to use the offsetting metric to assess their project’s impacts and then be free to choose to the means of securing compensation (i.e. through a section 106 agreement or by obtaining an offset);

■ A uniform approach where development projects that exceed a certain threshold would be required to use the offsetting metric to assess their project’s impacts and to obtain an offset as the mechanism for compensation. Developments below the threshold would be able to opt-in to using offsetting – i.e. using the permissive approach. One of the options considered to set the threshold is to use the size of the project as criteria. This would have a direct impact on the number of projects that would need to undertake offset and on the amount of offset required.

■ A Community Infrastructure Levy15 based approach. Under this approach developers would not directly secure offsets. Instead the charging authority, usually the planning authority, would

11 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228842/8082.pdf 12 Defra is working with the following organisations: Atkins, Aggregates Industries, Balfour Beatty, Eco Bos and Code 7 consulting, Golder Associates, Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council and the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, The Somerset Biodiversity Partnership, Worcestershire County Council. 13 Defra (2012) Biodiversity offsetting green paper https://consult.defra.gov.uk/biodiversity/biodiversity_offsetting/supporting_documents/20130903Biodiversity%20offsetting%20green%20paper.pdf 14 ‘Section 106’ (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a LPA to enter into a legally-binding agreement with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement. Obligations under S106 can also be secured through unilateral undertakings by developers. 15 The Community Infrastructure Levy was established by Section 205 of the Planning Act 2008 and empowers local authorities to charge a levy on most types of development in their area. The money raised can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods want. The


72

purchase offsets sufficient to compensate for the aggregate impact on biodiversity of developments in their area. The offsets would be funded by the levy collected by the planning authority and so would need to be built into their charging schedule. The funds need not be ring-fenced for biodiversity but could be part of the general levy receipts to be used to fund infrastructure. However, local authorities would have to make sure that the proposed biodiversity projects fall within the ambit of “infrastructure”. Moreover, mechanisms would need to be put in place to ensure that the funds levied by the local authorities for biodiversity offset reasons are actually invested in biodiversity conservation projects and not in other infrastructure projects. The lack of resource in local authorities to implement and monitor s106/CIL agreements already impacts on poor management of sites compensating for previous developments. Planning lawyers have made a strong case that CIL is inappropriate for offsetting as it consumes resources, is not enforced, and often results in no net benefits to biodiversity.

In its impact assessment on biodiversity offsetting published in August 2013 the government indicated its preference for a voluntary scheme under the form of a fully permissive approach. However, the government is still reviewing its position in light of the pilot findings. As stated by several LNP members, there is a fear that if biodiversity offsetting is not mandatory it will never deliver tangible results on a large scale. This view is supported by the Environmental Audit Committee of the UK Parliament which stated ‘A mandatory, rather than voluntary, offsetting system would encourage a market to develop, which would in turn allow more environmentally and economically viable offset projects to be brought forward’ . The Committee also stated that the limited uptake of biodiversity offsets in the pilots indicates that a mandatory system is probably desirable, but should first be evaluated in detail.

No decision on the potential mandatory legal frameworks has been made so far and Defra will analyse the results of the different pilot schemes in detail before making any further proposals. Compensation, including biodiversity offsetting, is considered a key part of the UK government’s strategy for addressing biodiversity loss.

In the interim, it is likely that where local planning authorities have decided to require residual impacts to be compensated for, then the most useful mechanism is through offsetting. Hence it is expected that offset delivery will escalate in the next two years.

A6.2.2 Factors governing biodiversity offsets

Although the framework for biodiversity offsetting in England may change in the future, a series of factors generally governing and delimiting biodiversity offsets have been identified in the Biodiversity Offset Green Paper published by Defra in 2013. Key elements of this Green Paper include:

■ No net loss perspective: Biodiversity offsetting is considered as key in the UK strategy to guarantee no net loss from development. Offsets compensate for the residual losses and are secured for the long term. Moreover they provide scope to achieve an overall net gain for biodiversity through locating the right offsets in the right place to improve ecological networks. The mitigation hierarchy: One of the key elements governing biodiversity offsetting is the mitigation hierarchy, which is used to define when biodiversity offset should be considered. It states that:

– In the first instance harm should be avoided, for instance by locating development at a different site.

– Where this is not possible the impacts should be mitigated, for instance through the detailed design of the development;

– Lastly any residual impacts should be compensated for, for instance by restoring or recreating habitat elsewhere.

– It is crucial that any offset system reinforces the observance of the mitigation hierarchy, and does not weaken or provide opportunities to sidestep this process.

detailed provisions for implementing the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) are set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended by the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011).


73

■ Scientific and legal limitations on offsetting: In theory offsetting has the potential to be applied everywhere as it allows the quantification of impacts on nature and the compensation of any loss by environmental gain elsewhere. In practice there are several scientific and legal limitation on offsetting:

– Some habitats cannot be recreated on a meaningful timetable.

– Existing EU and UK legislation sets clear limits to when and where compensation for impacts is acceptable. For example, under the Habitats Directive plans or projects adversely affecting a European site are only allowed if (1) there are no feasible alternatives, (2) there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) and (3) the integrity of the Natura 2000 network is maintained. Offsetting cannot cut across this and other similar legal protections.

– Similarly some species have strong protection under the Habitats Directive and any proposed offsetting approach that affected such species would need to adhere to these extant legal protections.

– Even 30 year period stated for management (under the existing pilots) still leaves the option open for loss of the new habitat in the future, as per changes in agricultural set aside and losses of habitat on the change to that framework.

– Losses in areas of development and concentration of offset implementation into land parcels of existing moderate value, even though this will enhance their value, could reduce the range and actual scale of land of value to biodiversity.

– Use of impact sites as a roost/foraging/refuge during migration is not currently assessed within the metric. This is a key gap and may impact on protected species.

A6.2.3 Elements necessary to implement biodiversity offsets

In its Green Paper and in different guidance documents Defra has identified a series of players and elements which will have to be put in place in order to develop biodiversity offsetting schemes. Key elements of this enabling framework include:

■ Offset providers (Seller): Offset providers supply offsets to developers who, as a result of the requirements of planning policy, must provide compensation for biodiversity loss resulting from development activity. An offset provider delivers a quantifiable amount of biodiversity benefit to offset the loss of biodiversity resulting from development. The losses and gains are measured in the same way, even if the habitats concerned are different.16

■ Developers using biodiversity offsets (Buyer): These can either provide the biodiversity offset themselves or commission an offset provider to provide them the required biodiversity offsets.17

■ Certifying body to ensure the quality of biodiversity offsets: As stated in Defra’s Green Paper, management agreements, such as a Conservation Bank Agreement and an annexed Biodiversity Offset Management Plan will probably be necessary to ensure offsets secure biodiversity gain for the long term and avoid the risk of net loss of biodiversity. In order to ensure the quality of the agreements and make sure they are enforced, a certifying body or individual may be required. With regard to the biodiversity offsetting bank in Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull, it has been proposed to establish a steering group as part of LNP to oversee and monitor the fees and use of these for biodiversity projects.

■ Conservation Covenants: These land management agreements are widely applied in the USA and elsewhere to ensure the maintenance of offsets for conservation purposes in perpetuity, and have been highlighted in the Green Paper as an important element of any offset system. However, the major issue with this is the availability of the land in the places identified- with many landowners reportedly unwilling to turn land over to such long-term and inflexible agreements. At

16 Full guidance for offset providers are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69530/pb13742-bio-guide-offset-providers.pdf 17 Full guidance for project developers are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69528/pb13743-bio-guide-developers.pdf


74

present it is generally land owned by wildlife conservation NGOs and by local authorities that is being considered for projects. This raises big questions regarding overall capacity to fulfil future demand for offsets.

■ Body managing the offset register: By their nature, biodiversity offsets have to last for a certain period of time18. In order to prevent a single offset being used to provide compensation for multiple projects, an offset register should be established. The Environment Bank has developed its Environmental Markets Exchange as an offset site register and it will eventually be a trading platform for credits.

■ The offset metric: Any biodiversity offset system has to be underpinned by a standard metric which enables the offset providers and project developers to quantify the impacts of their activities on biodiversity on a standardised way. It forms the basis of the system and allows biodiversity losses and gains affecting different habitats to be compared and ensure offsets were sufficient to compensate for residual losses of biodiversity. Some participants argue that quality check by an independent body is essential since Natural England is part of the government and subject to political pressures, and also has very limited resources to undertake this work.

■ Mechanisms to secure offsets against provider failure: In addition to the covenant and management agreement mentioned above, different options exist to secure offset on the long term. Options being considered include:

– Financial instrument such as annuity or trust fund that will provide a source of income to manage offsets in the long term;

– The state could establish a public sector trust fund that would make payments to offset providers over the long term to meet management costs;

– Offset providers could be required to pay into an insurance pool. The pool could be used to cover the risk that the owners of offset sites get into financial difficulty and fail to meet their obligation to create or maintain the offset site.

In addition to these players and key features identified by Defra, the following elements have been identified in the governance structure of the biodiversity pilots:

■ Independent biodiversity offset brokers: These intermediary players can support the biodiversity offset system by registering potential offset sites and matching them to the needs of the developers and local planning authorities. Brokers can facilitate the development of offset arrangements on new land. They can also give short to medium term guarantees on delivery, can undertake enforcement by paying the offset provider in accordance with a delivery schedule via a contract the offset provider has with the broker, and can ensure monitoring takes place.

■ Biodiversity offsetting bank: In the Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull biodiversity offset pilot programme (set up by the Environment Bank in association with Warwickshire Council), an alternative to matching a developer with an offsetting provider has been set up in the form of a biodiversity offsetting bank. This option allows the developer to pay a fee directly into a local biodiversity offsetting bank. The payment will be equivalent to the fee necessary to purchase the requisite biodiversity units from a provider. All the funds within the biodiversity offsetting bank will then be used for habitat restoration/creation projects in the region.

A6.2.4 How the biodiversity offsetting process occurs

There is no single framework for voluntary biodiversity offsetting. There are a range of options available to project developers and local planning authorities intending to develop and implement biodiversity offsetting. This section provides a short overview of the three options that described in this discussion paper. The diagram in Figure A6.3 presents the key interconnections between the relevant players for each option. The potential role for LNPs varies by option.

18 The time period has not been defined by Defra at this stage. The Natural Capital Committee recently stated that biodiversity offsetting policy currently under consideration would be best set within its proposed 25 year plan. See more information at: http://nebula.wsimg.com/c64561a921bff59b3b24340dd445fc7c?AccessKeyId=68F83A8E994328D64D3D&disposition=0&alloworigin=1


75

Certain steps are common to each option:

■ Application of the mitigation hierarchy by the project developers: Project developers should first apply the mitigation hierarchy and then assess whether they have to compensate for the impact of their project on biodiversity or not.

■ Quantification of the offset required: If it appears that compensation is necessary and the project developer choose to compensate through offsetting, project developers should calculate the exact quantity of offset necessary for their project based on the offset metric developed by Defra.

■ Biodiversity Offsetting Strategy: Before developing any biodiversity offsets LPA should publish details of the types of habitats they would like to see created through offsetting, and target areas for offset projects (e.g. linking together valuable wildlife sites, buffering watercourses, etc.).

■ Registering the offset: Offsets should be registered in a biodiversity offset register to keep track of various projects and the allocation of the offset credits.

■ Insure the offset: An insurance scheme should also be put in place to secure offsets against provider failure.


76

Figure A6.3 Flow diagram of the different options to develop biodiversity offsets

Source: ICF based on: Environment Bank19, North Devon Biosphere20, Rugby County Council21 and Doncaster County Council22.

19 The Environment Bank (2012) Biodiversity offsetting http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/Conferences/2012_Spring_Planning/Conference_Spring_2012-08_Tom_Tew.pdf 20 North Devon Biosphere (2013) NDB Offsetting strategy 2013-2020 http://www.northdevonbiosphere.org.uk/uploads/1/5/4/4/15448192/offsetting_strategy_v5.pdf 21 Rugby Borough Council (2013) Biodiversity offsetting https://www.rugby.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?fileID=5876 22 Doncaster Council (2013) Biodiversity offsetting- guidance on the process http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Images/Doncasters%20Biodiversity%20Offsetting%20Process37-99742.pdf


77

Option 1: Project developers develop their own offset sites

Role of the project developers: Under this option, the project developer will have to identify an appropriate site and design a biodiversity offset project. It is suggested that project developers consult their LPA early in the development of their biodiversity offset proposal as the LPA will have to eventually approve their proposal. Prior to the LPA approval, project developers will have to get a quality check by an independent certifying body and by Natural England. The Environment Bank is now working with developers and LPAs to work up the offset project, work out what is required, source the offset, broker the deal and implement.

Role of the LPA and legal basis: LPA consider the offset proposal submitted by the project developers in light of the advice from Natural England and the certifying body. They then have to assess whether the proposal is acceptable in planning terms. If they accept the proposal LPA will have to use one the mechanisms available in the planning system in order to provide a certain and enforceable requirement to provide compensation. Under this option the LPA can choose among two different instruments:

■ An S106 agreement, which allows an LPA to enter into a legally-binding agreement with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission.

■ The establishment of planning condition under the Town and Country Planning Act, which imposes conditions on the granting of planning permission.

Potential role of the LNP:

■ LNP could play a key role to support the LPA in drafting the local biodiversity offset strategy. For examples, one LNP would link with key experts in LBAP partnership for detailed knowledge of species. Some of this can be supplied by the biological record centre, but not all species knowledge is formally recorded.

■ LNP could play a role in the appointment of the certifying body which will help Natural England and the LPA to ensure that offsets secure biodiversity gain for the long term and avoid the risk of net loss of biodiversity. Depending on their capacity, LNPs could support the selection procedure.

Option 2: Project developers purchase biodiversity offsets

Role of the project developers: Under this option, project developers can either purchase biodiversity offsets from a biodiversity offset broker or an independent offset provider. This requires less work for project developers as the broker will either match the offset needs with an existing offsetting project or ensure the development of a new offsetting project. Once the adapted project has been identified, an agreement will be settled between the offset provider, the offset broker and the project developer. The proposal will then be subject to LPA’s approval. It is important to stress, that project developers also have the possibility to directly contact independent offset providers without having to work with an offset broker. However, evidence from overseas is that third party offsetting, using a broker, is the mechanism that works. First party (where the developer provides the offset site), has a high level of failure, as recently established by the Ecosystem Markets Taskforce.

Role of the LPA and legal basis: The role of the LPA and the legal basis is the same as in the previous option.

Potential role of the LNP: In addition to the roles already identified under option 1, an LNP could play a role in the relations between the project developers, the offset brokers and the offset providers. In some areas LNP are considering the possibility to act as biodiversity offset broker.

Box 8 LNP as biodiversity offset broker Wild Anglia, the LNP for Norfolk or Suffolk, and local authorities worked with project developers to identify options to mitigate the environmental and biodiversity impact of a planned housing development. The parties agreed that the project developers would, under the terms of a S106 agreement, finance biodiversity compensation activities in the local area. To manage the fund of S106 payments, Wild Anglia and Norfolk County Council created the ‘Connecting Nature Fund’. The fund will use mitigation funds from local developers to support habitat development in Norfolk – no precision was given about what the exact support would be, i.e., creation of new habitat or enhancement of existing one. Wild Anglia LNP will de facto act as the offset broker,


78

negotiating directly with the project developers about the nature, location and type of offset schemes created.

Based on this experience Wild Anglia LNP is considering establishing the partnership as a local branch of existing biodiversity offset brokers, such as the Environment Bank, or potentially as an independent biodiversity offset broker. Acting as an offsets broker could potentially provide the LNP with a source of funding.

Source: Stakeholder consultation

Option 3: Project developers contribute to a biodiversity offset bank or fund

Role of the project developers: Under the third option, project developers would not directly secure offsets. Instead this would take the form of either an offsetting payment to a biodiversity offset bank, or a payment to the local authority under the framework of the Community Infrastructure Levy.

■ In the first case, which does not exist under the current framework, the offsetting bank would then invest the collected fund into habitat restoration/creation projects.

■ In the second case, the charging authority, usually the planning authority, would purchase offsets sufficient to compensate for the aggregate impact on biodiversity of developments in their area. The offsets would be funded by the levy collected by the planning authority and so would need to be built into their charging schedule. The funds would not need to be ring-fenced for biodiversity but could instead be part of the general levy receipts used to fund infrastructure investments. However, this approach would have many of the established limitations of the Community Infrastructure Levy.

Role of the LPA and legal basis: Under this option, the LPA has more responsibilities as they have to directly or indirectly manage the fund which will use the offset finances to re-invest in biodiversity conservation projects. This option could be established through Section 106 agreements with individual projects, or through the inclusion of biodiversity compensation fees into Community Infrastructure Levy.

Potential role of the LNP: In addition to the roles already identified under option 1, LNP could under this scenario have additional responsibilities:

■ As stated in the Box above, LNP could play a key role in the management of the biodiversity offsetting fund, which could be similar to the “Connecting Nature Fund” established by Wild Anglia and the Norfolk County Council.

■ LNP could play a key role in the monitoring and audit of the independent offsetting bank or of the fund created by the local authorities. The LNP could also play an advisory role on how the fund should be spent.

■ Mechanisms would need to be put in place to ensure that the funds levied by the local authorities for biodiversity offset reasons are actually invested in biodiversity conservation projects and not in other infrastructure projects. LNP could play a key role in these mechanisms.

Box 9 LNP as controller or manager of the biodiversity offsetting fund

The Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull’s Local Biodiversity Offsetting Strategy specifies a distinct role for the local LNP. The sub-regional local authorities offer planning applicants the option of making a financial payment instead of securing their own offset scheme. Along other organisations, the LNP is responsible for the monitoring and reporting of all income and expenditure of the different funds, the amount of offsets, where they have come from and where they have been offset.

In Dorset, a ‘Biodiversity Protocol’ was established by the County Council. The idea behind this protocol is that, while large scale projects often take biodiversity into account the additional impact of small scale projects is often not recognised and not compensated for. The Dorset LPA requires all projects on a development site (greenfield or brownfield) over 0.1ha in size to submit a Biodiversity Appraisal and a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan together with their Planning Application. In cases where If it appears that it is not possible to fully mitigate for the loss of biodiversity on a development site, the applicants are encouraged to avoid residual losses via offsite compensation measures. These measures can either take the form of physical enhancement to a site elsewhere in the control of the applicant (Option 1) or be a financial contribution to an offsetting fund (Option 3). The role of the LNP


79

in the management of the offsetting fund was discussed and it was decided that, while the LNP could play support the management of the fund, its input would be more valuable and appropriate at strategic level.

The table below summarises the role of the different players for each scenario. In this table the potential role assigned to LNPs are additional from options 1 to 3. More details about these potential roles are provided in Table A6.4.

Table A6.3 Summary of potential stakeholder roles in different options for biodiversity offsetting

Option Project developers LPA LNP

Common to all options

Apply the mitigation hierarchy

Quantify the offset required

Register the offset

Insure the offset

Design a biodiversity offsetting strategy

Register the offset

Insure the offset

Design a biodiversity offsetting strategy

Option 1 Identify an appropriate site and design a biodiversity offset project

Receive quality check

Receive LPA’s approval

Evaluate the biodiversity offset project proposal based on different advices

Contribute to the appointment of the certifying body

Option 2 Purchase biodiversity offsets from a biodiversity offset broker or an independent offset provider


Evaluate the biodiversity offset project proposal based on different advices

Contribute to relations between the project developers, the offset brokers and the offset providers

Act as local offset broker

Option 3 Make offsetting payment to biodiversity offset bank, or a payment to the local authority


Directly or indirectly manage the fund which will use the offset finances to re-invest in biodiversity conservation projects

Contribute to the management of the biodiversity offsetting fund

Contribute to the monitoring and audit of the independent offsetting bank or of the fund

A6.2.5 What role for LNPs in the biodiversity offsetting process?

LNPs’ potential roles

During the thematic evaluation LNPs suggested that they potentially have a role to play in each of the implementation options identified. The most appropriate LNP role will depend on the stakeholders participating in the LNP, and the capacity of the LNP to get involved.

A key question regarding the role of LNPs is whether they should have an implementation role or an advisory role. During the workshop some LNP members were of the opinion that an advisory role is more suited to LNPs’ structure, strategy and resources. Moreover, as in many cases, LNP are not established as an executive body, this would better fit with their mandate. On the other hand, some LNP members considered that being actively involved in the management of a scheme and its implementation would provide the opportunity to reinforce LNPs’ mandate, and could also offer a source of LNP funding. Others voiced concerns that this could add unnecessary administration and costs to the offsets process.

Table A6.4 provides an overview of the potential role for LNPs in the development and operation of a biodiversity offsetting system.


80

Table A6.4 Potential role for LNPs in the development of biodiversity offset systems

Key elements needed to enable biodiversity offsetting

Potential role for LNP

Assessment of the desirability of developing a biodiversity offset at local level

LNP members stressed the important role of the LNPs in this process. LNPs could support the assessment of whether biodiversity offsetting is appropriate in their area or not and make sure that offsetting is considered as last resort in the mitigation hierarchy.

Development of a Biodiversity Offsetting Strategy

LNPs could serve as link between the local authorities and the local developers during the development of the Biodiversity Offsetting Strategy.

LNPs could help the local authorities decide which implementation option is the most adapted to the local level.

LNPs could establish a series of criteria’s or guiding principles for the local biodiversity offset strategies.

Identification of priority areas or habitats for offsetting to feed into the Biodiversity Offsetting Strategy

LNPs could play a key role in the strategic spatial mapping of the areas they cover. As they embrace many different players they could coordinate the process of “opportunity mapping” and identify which areas should be prioritised for biodiversity offsets.

Communication of the biodiversity offset strategies to the stakeholders

Once a strategy is established, LNPs should endorse it. This endorsement could facilitate the buy-in of landowners and project developers.

LNPs could serve as channel to spread and publicise the local biodiversity offset strategies.

Application of the mitigation hierarchy by the project developers

LNPs could play a role in making sure that offsetting is considered as last resort in the mitigation hierarchy.

Quantification of the offset required

Due to their access to environmental records and datasets, LNPs could support the application of the offset metric.

Setting up biodiversity offset brokers and biodiversity offsetting bank

LNPs could represent or serve as link for their local authorities with offset brokers and banks.

LNPs could act as local biodiversity offset brokers. However, this approach could be challenging because of the politicised nature of many LNP members.

Monitoring of the biodiversity offset system

LNPs could play an important role in the overseeing, monitoring and certification of the biodiversity offset system.

Registering the offset As part of their monitoring role LNPs could overview the mechanism to register offset. However, depending on the future legal framework this might not happen at local level, and would normally be undertaken by the broker together with a national registry.

Insure the offset As part of their monitoring role LNPs could overview the mechanism to insure offset.

Other role along the process As LNPs covers different counties, they could play a strategic role regarding offset provision to maximise benefits for local ecological networks. This would moreover enable inter-operability and create a larger offset offer in terms of geographical cover.

Given their access to a variety of stakeholders, LNPs could encourage interested developers to participate and help them to find potential offset providers.


81

Perceived barriers

A series of barriers for LNPs to act on biodiversity offset was identified by the LNP members who participated in the thematic workshop during June 2014. The key barriers are summarised below:

■ The biggest obstacle is the threat of a changing legal framework due to the expected legislative development. LNPs, who already have very limited resources, don’t want to invest time and resources in the development of a scheme which they will then have to modify based on the new legislation.

■ Another barrier recognised by all workshop participants is the LNPs’ lack of capacity and resource to play a significant role in the implementation of the biodiversity offset systems.

■ In addition to this lack of resources, different LNP members stressed that the LNPs’ do not have a clear mandate to get involved in in biodiversity offsetting, and may lack the necessary credibility.

■ A few LNP members also stressed that the diversity of the LNP board’s composition could create obstacles for the involvement of the LNPs in biodiversity offsetting schemes, as conflict of interest could easily occur. For example, if an LNP had to provide independent advice on an offsetting project proposed by a project developer, who would himself, be represented in the LNP.

■ Another challenge identified during the workshop relates to the difficulty to access the robust and reliable data necessary to put a sound biodiversity offsetting scheme in place. The difficulty of accessing suitable land was also highlighted as one of the key challenges. However, these two challenges relate more to the nature of biodiversity offsetting than the role of LNP.

According to some participants, LNPs would be far better undertaking one or several of the following:

■ A consultation role.

■ Provision of specialist data.

■ Coordination of views to LPAs.

■ Provision of monitoring.

Perceived opportunities

In response to the obstacles listed above, the workshop participants also identified a series of opportunities for LNPs:

■ Through their focus on overarching strategies, such as Biodiversity 2020, and (in general) access to detailed ecological datasets, LNPs could play a technical advisory role in setting offsets within a coherent landscape strategy to maximise conservation benefits. This would also provide a link to wider strategic objectives, such as ecological networks. LNP involvement as an objective, independent and impartial view on particular sites, viewing these within a landscape scale perspective rather than solely on site basis, could be very useful.

■ Different LNP members stressed that there are different opportunities for LNP to get involved and have access to new revenue streams. These could take different forms:

– Given that in some cases LPAs lack the capacities to make efficient use of the compensation aimed at biodiversity offsetting, LNPs could propose to play the role of an official advisor on how to implement compensation within the planning process. A service fee could be asked for this task. Other participants argued that it would not be feasible or relevant for LNP to become involved in advising on planning issue and compensation process;

– Due to their composition, LNPs have (often) access to large local environmental records and datasets. As these data will probably be needed to use the offset metrics developed by Defra, different LNP members consider that their use could generate some financing for the LNPs’ activities. Some respondents suggested that LNPs would not have access to site-based data, however. Alternatively, the data collected for the offset metrics could be used for other purposes – such as the development of ecological networks and thus lead to co-benefits.

■ As mentioned in Box 9, some LNP are also considering the possibility to act as biodiversity offset advisors and to generate revenues from the advice provided.


82

■ Due to their composition and their potential presence along the whole biodiversity offsetting process, it is also considered that LNP could play an important communication role to ensure clarity around the concept of biodiversity offsetting. This could take different forms and serve different objectives:

– Existing compensation measures are often criticised for a perceived lack of transparency and low confidence in the link between compensation outcomes and ecological benefits. LNPs could play a key advocacy role in promoting better public understanding and support for offset measures by enforcing greater transparency (through the use of offset metrics) than the current system whereby ecological impacts are qualitatively assessed and, as is often the case, a conclusion of 'no significant impact' given.

– LNPs could play an important role in engaging the ‘hearts and minds’ of landowners, to securing access to (increasingly scarce) land for offsetting, and ensuring the maintenance of the land for this purpose over the long term. Through their advocacy and communication role, LNPs could help represent the collective interests of local landowners whilst building the case for their participation within associated land management agreements.

– Others argue that the politicised nature of LNPs could act as a barrier to engaging landowners, suggesting that the best role therefore for the LNP is to get all planning authorities to implement their duties by properly delivering NPPF, advise on the best types of habitat required, and then advise on the best general large scale locations for offset sites.

■ Due to their composition, the LNPs have the potential to overcome local politics and are by their nature longstanding institutions. Based on these two elements LNPs have the potential to play an important role in the long term management and/or overseeing of the biodiversity offset systems, which is crucial given the nature of biodiversity offset.

■ Finally, the offset metric developed by Defra was considered as a very interesting tool to help local authorities, developers and the local communities make sure that the mitigation measures associated with a particular project are sufficient to ensure no net biodiversity loss. However, some LNP members fear that if the metric is not applied uniformly by the different stakeholders then each offset scheme could make apply a different calculation, resulting on conflicting results. There might be a role for LNPs to encourage the use of the metric as a way to provide clarity around impacts to local habitats, and also ensure coordination in the use of the metrics to make sure that overlapping calculations are avoided.

■ The different opportunities could help LNPs raise their profile and help sustain and reinforce their position in the local context.


Table A6.5 Key publications from the local authorities which participated to the biodiversity offset pilots

Author Year Title Comments

Defra and Natural England

2012 Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots - Guidance for offset providers23

Defra and Natural England published a series of guidance providing advice on biodiversity offsetting for providers and developers of schemes in pilot areas. These guidance documents are also helpful for other authorities wishing to integrate biodiversity offsetting within their planning policy.

Defra and Natural England

2012 Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots - Guidance for developers24

Defra and Natural

2012 Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots - Information note for Local

23 Defra and Natural England (2012) Biodiversity offsetting pilots- guidance for developers https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69530/pb13742-bio-guide-offset-providers.pdf 24 Defra and Natural England (2012) Biodiversity offsetting pilots- guidance for developers https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69528/pb13743-bio-guide-developers.pdf and https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/218680/1204-bio-offset-pilot-appendix.pdf (appendix)


83

Author Year Title Comments

England Authorities25

Defra 2013 Webinar - Biodiversity offsetting in England Green Paper26

Defra has also participated to a webinar organised by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) to present their Green Paper. This webinar presented by John Kilner and followed by a Q&A session.

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme

2009 Biodiversity Offset Implementation Handbook27

This document specifically looks at how the planners can put the mechanisms in place to ensure sound implementation, permanence and good governance of the biodiversity offsets. It offers a discussion of the potential roles and responsibilities of potential stakeholders, legal and institutional aspects of establishing an offset, and how an offset management plan can be developed.

Bull J.W., et al. 2013 Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice28

A multitude of academic papers exists tackling the different theoretical issues associated with biodiversity offsetting. While most of these papers do not address the practical implementation of biodiversity offset, others specifically take this aspect into account and identify best practices and design recommendations.

25 Defra (2012) Biodiversity offsetting pilots. Implementation note for local authorities. Accessed 28.10.2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69529/pb13744-bio-local-authority-info-note.pdf 26 Defra (2013) Biodiversity offsetting in England. http://vimeo.com/77714264 27 Forest Trends (2009) Biodiversity offset implementation handbook. http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3092.pdf 28 Bull, et al. (2013) Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx, Vol. 0, pp. 1-12 http://www.prasinogroup.com/pdfs/Biodiversity%20Offsets%20Theory%20and%20Practice%20REVIEW%202013.pdf


84

A6.3 LNPs’ role in identifying new and enhancing existing ecological networks

This paper includes a brief summary of policy related to ecological networks in the UK, an overview of the findings of the LNP evaluation, the main challenges LNPs encountered related to ecological networks, and examples of how LNPs have successfully undertaken initiatives related to ecological networks. The paper is based on an evidence review, interviews with LNPs and a workshop with LNPs and subsequent desk research. The workshop covered the following points:

■ How can LNPs assume a leadership role through ecological networks?

■ How can further exchange of best practice be developed by LNPs?

■ What are the baseline evidence requirements for an ecological network?

■ How could new types of ecological networks be developed?


The strengthening of ecological networks and reversal of habitat fragmentation were identified as key priorities within the ‘Making Space for Nature’ Review of England’s Wildlife Areas. Policy outcomes from the report’s recommendations included the establishment of a network of Nature Improvement Areas. There are now 12 NIAs in operation across England and receiving £7.5m of public support. NIAs are typically managed by a range of conservation bodies, but some are also run by Local Authorities and one is run by a group of farmers. NIAs have often provided loci for experimentation with new methodologies or management approaches.

NIAs should contain the components of an ecological network:

■ Core areas, such as existing wildlife sites and SSSIs.

■ Corridors and stepping stones.

■ Restoration zones.

■ Buffer zones, reducing pressure on core areas.

■ Sustainable management of surrounding land.

Phase II of the Monitoring and Evaluation of NIAs is currently ongoing (2013-2015). Following key outcomes of the First Phase M&E, which included the development of an online recording tool to aid the monitoring of NIA condition, the Second Phase is intended to provide further refinements to monitoring tools, better integration of data, and specific support to locally-identified NIAs as these emerge. The LNP Implementation group has agreed to use the national criteria for NIA designation initially. This will be explored further during autumn 2014.

In addition to NIAs, there has been a reinforcement of the role of ecological networks within the planning framework in England, giving greater emphasis to existing and potential networks and the resilience of wildlife and ecosystem services. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in 2012, provides a strategic framework to enable sustainable development in the UK. It reflects recommendations from the Natural Environment White Paper and recognises the roles of LNPs, AONBs, and statutory and non-statutory organisations in enhancing the natural environment. The NPPF states that the planning policies should establish coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. Planning policies should identify and map ecological networks and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration and creation.

Local Nature Partnerships could potentially have a key role to play in local delivery of Biodiversity 2020 outcomes. These have superseded Biodiversity Action Planning as the framework for securing biodiversity within the England Biodiversity Strategy and emphasise the importance of a strategic, landscape scale view of conservation actions as outlined in the Natural Environment White Paper (2011). Many Local Nature Partnerships have since identified Biodiversity 2020 outcomes as their organisational goals.

Through their strategic and influencing roles, many LNPs consider that they are well-placed to identify and facilitate ecological networks locally, by bringing together evidence and co-ordinating the actions of local partners. During the thematic evaluation LNPs suggested that there is scope for LNPs to work


85

to enhance delivery of current ecological networks, and also to help in the identification and elaboration of future ecological networks; LNPs have been specifically encouraged to do so.

A6.3.2 Findings of the LNP evaluation

The majority of LNPs are either working to support ecological networks, or intend to do so but have not yet started. This includes working with Nature Improvement Areas (NIA) that currently received national funding, and working to identify new locally-determined NIAs and other ecological networks.

As part of their general enthusiasm to share learning about ecological networks, most LNPs are interested in the experience of other LNPs in this area. LNP participants would like to know how other LNPs are interacting with ecological networks, what work they are undertaking together, and what skills and expertise LNPs are drawing upon to enhance local ecological networks.

Whilst existing NIAs are a useful start point, these are only useful for 12 areas of the country, and their future funding and sustainability will need to be addressed shortly. Many other counties are actively working to develop ecological networks and landscape scale restoration.

LNPs can contribute to ecological networks in a variety of ways. Examples from South West England emphasise the ability for LNPs to build on pre-existing networks and to promote greater integration of existing initiatives at a landscape scale. There is some scope for LNPs to engage with parallel activities in the water sector (for example, enhancing links between forestry and land stewardship activities and catchment restoration at a landscape scale). LNPs can play the role of an ‘honest broker’ in this regard, obtaining buy-in and building consensus across stakeholders. Engagement with local authorities, in particular, could be key to the development of ecological networks.

Table A6.6 summarises interim findings from the LNP Evaluation on the key elements of ecological network delivery and the potential role for LNPs at each stage.

Table A6.6 Elements of network delivery, and the role for LNPs

Key elements of network delivery Potential role for LNPs

Mapping actual and potential habitats, wildlife sites and linkages

Ensuring consistency and reliability of ecological datasets, particularly with regard to the integration of data

Planning for greater connectivity amongst wildlife sites

Providing input into planning consultation and monitoring potential impacts on ecological connectivity

Building consensus amongst local stakeholders

Consulting local interest groups such as landowners, who may be sceptical about the mapping process

Decision support systems for networks and connectivity

Ensuring effective use of decision-support tools and metrics at the local level

Identifying actual and potential impacts on wildlife sites

Drawing on local and expert ecological knowledge to assess impacts

Data collection and data integration Promoting the use of standardised monitoring practices and information systems to ensure better comparability of data

Monitoring of wildlife sites and connectivity

Integrating ecological knowledge and understanding of local trends; harmonising evaluation processes

Source: ICF, 2014. Evaluation of LNPs: Interim Report

Main successes

The evaluation found that LNPs most frequently worked with the concept of ecological networks as a means to pull together different data and activities, and to add value to these activities. LNPs have been well-placed to contribute to ecological networks such as NIAs in this respect due to their diverse membership and expertise, and links to a range of sectors.

Decision-support tools are often developed as an outcome of development processes for NIAs and ecological networks, and can support public and policy engagement with the network concept and more transparent management, as evidenced by the broad range of stakeholders involved in projects


86

such as the Cheshire Ecological Network. LNPs are well-placed to promote the integration of these tools across a range of activities and communities of interest.

The experience of Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping in the Trent Valley (see Box 11) indicates that scientific methodologies and tools need to go hand-in-hand with local knowledge in a coherent and structured manner. LNPs can support this process through workshops exploring the local applicability of these tools. The Trent Valley example also highlights the importance of finding pragmatic solutions for the design of ecological networks which balance short-term conservation and development needs with more long-term goals.

As the example of Swindon and Wiltshire LNP highlights, networks need to account for multiple spatial scales as well as different temporal scales. LNPs can play an important role in highlighting and linking small-scale and large-scale elements of existing conservation areas within a common strategic framework at the landscape scale. These measures should, as far as possible, provide a link to existing frameworks at the local or regional scale (building on previous work relating to Biodiversity Action Plans, for example).

In Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull, £110,000 of funding 2012 – 2015 towards landscape scale work has engaged many partners in delivery, across all districts in the county on key projects, either corridors or strategic landscape areas. This has drawn three new partnership groups together, supported two existing partnerships to develop landowner links. The work is continuing into this final year of funding and is supporting development of funding applications.

Obtaining consensus around the desirability of ecological networks is crucial to ensure their long term viability and there are a number of strong examples of LNPs working towards achieving buy-in from traditionally sceptical stakeholders such as landowners. The example of the Marlborough Downs ecological network was cited, where the Local Authority used a combination of informal networking and peer pressure to ensure the engagement of all affected landowners. However, some participants questioned the applicability of lessons from the Marlborough Downs case- suggesting that many of its successes hinged on the local context.

Key success factors for LNPs to engage with the development of ecological networks relate to: effective use of data, whether through the integration of existing monitoring activities or the development of new decision-support tools; and, engagement of a range of local communities of interest within the development and maintenance of the network over the long term.

Examples of success

Examples of effective LNP engagement have built on previous initiatives, either at the county level (Cheshire’s LIFE pilot project) or regional level (Link2Nature’s use of the Southwest Rebuilding Biodiversity Methodology). There is a need to consider how LNPs could promote greater engagement with the network concept in the absence of an existing policy framework or data infrastructure - transferability of knowledge and tools are key points for discussion in this regard. The proliferation of standards and monitoring frameworks are issues that most LNPs are grappling with. A number of LNPs have undertaken ecological opportunity mapping work over the last few years, which now needs integrating with ecosystem services and connectivity mapping- requiring additional resources and management.

Box 10 Planning for connectivity: Cheshire Ecological Network Many official policy documents relating to ecological networks point to the early example of implementation of ecological networks in Cheshire, which is an outcome of a major European project with input from Dutch research and consultants with technical expertise in the creation of ecological networks. Cheshire LNP is now taking this work forward, building on previous initiatives and innovations at the county level.

The Cheshire ECOnet project (1993) was delivered by Cheshire County Council Environmental Planning Service with the support of a wide range of rural agencies, landowners and farmers, community groups and individuals. Financial support was provided by the EU’s LIFE facility, and it is envisaged that the Cheshire Ecological Network will encompass 4000 hectares of new and restored peatlands, heathlands, moorlands, meadows and wetlands. One outcome of the initial programme was a decision-support tool (the ECOnet monitoring tool). In addition, the network concept was incorporated into Regional Planning Guidance and Community Strategy (prior to the integration of networks within the NPPF). There is thus a strong institutional and technical background


87

associated with the delivery of ecological networks in Cheshire.

The first stage of this project involved representatives from Natural England and representatives from local councils and universities through the development of a project group. This group then developed more refined maps so as to apply for LIFE funding. Following the successful allocation of LIFE funding for the project, the consortium broadened to include utility companies, regional development agencies and specialist consultancies. Later, land use planners, statutory agencies and conservation bodies were presented with alternative scenarios for implementation. Data and capacities where thus built up over time in an iterative fashion.

A key element of the Cheshire Ecological Network is to make explicit the links between biodiversity and social and economic benefits. This includes the integration of the network concept into farming, forestry, land regeneration, and restoration of mineral workings and landfill sites. Socio-economic benefits from the project were outlined in 2004, and it was established that significant improvements to job creation, quality of life and wealth creation could be realised through the creation of the Cheshire Ecological Network. For example, over 550 jobs are expected to arise in the farming sector over 20 years through diversification of management practices. Based on experiences from the ECOnet project, such evidence is essential to build the necessary support and engagement across policymakers and communities to deliver effective networks and to ensure their viability over the long term.

Source: Catchpole, R (2008) Current status of the practical implementation of ecological networks in England. A Report to Natural England (p. 21)

Box 11 Decision support systems: Trent Valley Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping (Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Group)

The GIS Habitat Network Model developed by the National Forest Company is based on the permeability of different habitats to the movement of species. It uses a “generic focal species” to represent each of four habitat networks (woodland, grassland, heathland and wetland), and every Phase 1 habitat that is mapped is assigned a permeability value for each of the four generic species. The permeability values are based on the work of Roger Catchpole at Natural England and but can be modified to reflect local conditions/circumstances.

The Model then uses “least cost analysis” to calculate how far the generic focal species can move from its core habitat, with species moving further through more permeable habitats than through less permeable ones; for


88

example, the woodland focal species can move well through habitats that are similar to woodland, such as scrub, but not through habitats which are very different to woodland, such as arable farmland or grassland. Therefore, core habitats that are surrounded by more permeable habitats will allow for stronger networks than those separated by impermeable ones. Where areas of core habitat become linked, these are referred to as Habitat Networks. To assist in the interpretation of this data, Habitat Networks have been placed into different categories depending on their size (which is the size of the Habitat Network, not the size of the core habitat contained within the Habitat Network), so that large Habitat Networks (containing areas of well-connected habitats) can be distinguished from small Habitat Networks (representing isolated and fragmented areas of habitat).

Stakeholder workshops were held in April and June 2013, during which participants were asked to annotate the Habitat Network maps for each of the four habitat types, for two timescales- a 10-year period and a 50-year period. This highlighted opportunities for ‘short-term’ and ‘long-term’ network elements, reflecting alternative ecological timescales but also the influence of different management actions over time.

Box 12 Mapping actual and potential habitats: Link2Nature (Swindon and Wiltshire LNP)

Swindon and Wiltshire LNP represents a highly successful example of how LNPs can engage with multiple interests and organisations to contribute to ecological networks across a diverse range of geographical settings.

Strategic Nature Areas have been developed across the Southwest, using available biodiversity data, local expert knowledge and the Southwest Wildlife Trust’s Rebuilding Biodiversity methodology, a science-based framework for identifying viable target areas for priority habitats and creation of a robust ecological network. Building on this approach, Landscape Biodiversity Areas have been developed from the previous Wiltshire and Swindon Biodiversity Action Plans, and work alongside existing initiatives in the counties such as the RSPB’s Futurescapes Project, the Environment Agency’s work relating to the Water Framework Directive and catchment-sensitive farming, as well as three AONBs covering 44% of the county.

The basis of LBAs is to identify specific opportunities for landscape-scale conservation actions (including Nature Improvement Areas) within these wider areas, as well as areas of alignment and conflict between existing areas. This underlines the need for multiple scales of analysis within the identification and development of ecological networks. In addition, LBAs are utilised to propose restoration or buffer zones within large-scale planning applications for development- ensuring alignment with existing ecological networks.

Efforts are undertaken by Link2Nature to promote standardised monitoring methodologies such as Butterfly Conservation’s Butterfly Transects or BTO’s Bird Atlas, so as to ensure the best collection protocols are followed and that data gathered can be analysed against data collected anywhere. In addition, the local Biodiversity Records Centre has over 1 million records- advanced filtering and monitoring of this data is undertaken to identify reliable long-term datasets which can be used to analyse trends in species and ecosystems.

Targeted use of agri-environment schemes, such as Land Stewardship Agreements are a key example of how engaging agricultural stakeholders can help strengthen the long-term viability of networks. In the Nene Valley NIA, for example, over 1500ha of land has been entered into High Level Stewardship (HLS) agreements so as to strengthen the ecological network.

Agri-environment schemes can be instrumental in establishing a link between conservation interests and rural livelihoods. Nonetheless, the focus of these agreements remains largely on farm-level interventions and there are few incentives for farmers to act cooperatively, as recommended within the Lawton Review. LNPs can play a key coordinating role in this regard, identifying the specific ‘building blocks’ of agri-environmental agreements that would be needed to contribute to greater ecological coherence. This could then form the starting point for agri-environmental payments to landholders, or a coordinated action to strengthen the financial viability of these activities, such as the proposal for a local NIA.

Interviews with LNP representatives indicate that the main challenge for LNPs encountered when engaging with ecological networks is ensuring adequate exchange of information and best practice prior to the identification of new networks. In particular, there is a need to consider strategic alignment with current or planned networks, developments that may impact on the future resilience of any network, as well as long-term ecological and climatic trends that could influence the viability of the network. Often, scoping of potential networks is robust from an ecological perspective but pays insufficient regard to issues surrounding social acceptance and local engagement- these have proven to be key success factors for many existing networks and will influence long-term viability of the


89

network elements. Hence, LNPs have a key role to play in engaging relevant local partners and interests.

There is a need for greater engagement with the ecosystems approach within the design and management of networks, to ensure coherence with national-level policy drivers and to identify trade-offs and synergies between conservation goals and local social and economic priorities. There remains a widespread perception that ecological networks are primarily a restriction or barrier to local growth and economic development, and this can result in concern or even resistance amongst local stakeholders. In particular, the initial NIA designation process was cited by discussion group participants as being interpreted as ‘designation by stealth’ amongst local economic interest. Great care will need to be taken when consulting on future ecological networks to avoid these perceptions.

Cheshire Ecological Network provides a good practical example of addressing socio-economic concerns within ecological planning. However, indirect links have been forged to socioeconomic considerations in other network projects. For example, the England Habitat Network has been used as part of a public benefits scoring system in the Northwest region to inform land use decisions, and has also been used within the Thames Gateway project as an element within Green Infrastructure planning.

Barriers

■ Different participants fear that LNPs lack credibility and support from some of their members to play an important role in the mapping of ecological networks.

■ They also stated that there could be conflict between the interest of the LNPs’ members and the interest of the LNP as a whole. There might also be cases of conflicting initiatives.

■ An additional risks perceived by workshop participants is the lack of continuity of partners and projects. The loss of important expertise at local level due to LNP members leaving their posts or retiring was also highlighted. This does not apply to ecological networks only but was perceived as a general risk.

■ The lack of effective and strategic planning in the LNP was perceived as a barrier.

■ The common interpretation of ecological networks as a barrier to local growth and development can result in concern or even resistance amongst local stakeholders.

■ Similarly, the process for initial NIA designation has led to a perception that these represent ‘designation by stealth’ for environmental purposes: great care will need to be taken when consulting on locally-defined NIAs for this reason.

■ Currently Local Wildlife Sites are being lost to development and poor management and there is very little protection for them. This is an ongoing and serious problem, and is affecting all habitats, but especially grasslands. Stronger protection for LWSs is required nationally and locally.

Opportunities

■ LNPs could play a key role in the definition of the needs of their local areas in terms of ecological networks mapping. They could assess whether the existing tools are fit for purpose and advise on their use. They could also ensure that the right people are engaged in the mapping process.

■ LNPs could play an important role with regard to the landowners’ engagement in the ecological network. The example of the Marlborough Downs NIA was mentioned in this respect. The local authorities used informal networking and peer pressure to ensure the participation of all the local landowners.

■ The possibility to engage with local agents was also mentioned. They are considered as key in the development process but they may not be willing to dedicate time and effort to ecological networks.

■ LNPs can play a key role in raising awareness by highlighting successes of their partners in areas relevant to ecological networks (e.g. green infrastructure).


90

■ Participants noted the possibility to link ecological networks to contemporary concepts in planning and development circles (e.g. place-shaping and resilience agendas) thus helping to embed the concept.

■ Workshop participants recognised that LNPs could play a key role in the transfer of knowledge to the younger generation. This is similar to one of the LEPs’ priorities and synergies between the two may be available. This could take the form of schemes encouraging senior LNPs members to monitor new staff. Such initiative would prevent loss of institutional memory. More broadly LNPs could play a role in highlighting the loss of practical skills in the field of environmental management. In order for LNPs to play a role in mentoring and training staff and volunteers, resources will have to be found. Many partners are undertaking elements of this work, but it needs to be on a greater scale to fill the widening gap of loss of skills and knowledge.

A6.3.3 Areas discussed during the thematic workshops

The four issues listed below, selected by LNPs, were considered during the thematic evaluation.

How can LNPs assume a leadership role through ecological networks?

Work undertaken to engage the public with NIAs suggests the concept of ecological networks resonates strongly with the wider public. For example, three NIAs recorded over 1000 hours of volunteering in their first year of operation, and the CONNECT project (Humberhead Levels NIA) resulted in an additional 5,000 hours of volunteer time. Such voluntary activities have a strong relevance given the unfunded status of most LNPs. LNPs could draw on their diverse membership to help develop new forms of public participation, helping to engage people with the natural environment through the channel of ecological networks.

In particular, LNPs can play a key role in the transfer of environmental knowledge to younger generations, through the medium of ecological networks, by strengthening the focus of LNPs on skills and training for young people. LNPs could play a role in highlighting the loss of practical skills in the field of environmental management, and promote ecological networks

As an advocate for the environment within business and local economic decision-making, as well as a conduit for a range of local conservation interests, LNPs are well placed to contribute to the identification of new ecological networks. In particular, LNPs could provide the role of a broker to facilitate discussions and exchanges between interested parties and development of consortia

LNPs contribution to ecological networks could be developed further through:

■ The use of thematic ‘best practice’ events (similar to the event on grasslands management hosted by North Devon NIA).

■ The development of supplementary planning and decision-support guidance tools that could be applied more broadly.

■ Collaborative communication and research exercises with local universities, schools and agricultural colleges, potentially leading towards bids for research grants.

LNPs identified a key role for partnerships in helping to facilitate communication around ecological networks- if they build credibility over time and make sure the right people are talking to the right audiences. LNPs could have a role to play in integrating existing initiatives (e.g. the RSPB’s Living Landscapes, the Environment Agency’s Catchment Based Approach) under the concept of a local ecological network. Doing so would help all parties realise efficiencies of scale in monitoring and management, and also provide the necessary scale and experience to bid for national or EU funding- as the example of Cheshire Ecological Network demonstrates.

How can further exchange of best practice be developed by LNPs?

LNPs are the natural link between national and local networks for exchange of best practice, and have a key role in assessing the applicability, in terms of relevance and quality, of nationally and regionally produced information. They can also provide a link with local conservation interests to disseminate information and best practice. In particular, LNPs can play a key role in raising awareness by highlighting successes of their partners in areas relevant to ecological networks, such as green infrastructure.


91

There has been engagement and knowledge sharing between NIAs: two NIA best practice events have been held, an online discussion forum has seen increasing uptake, and an NIA forum has been held. Such opportunities for peer exchange provide a valuable means for sharing best practice relating to some of the complex issues surrounding ecological networks. Often, the challenge for those involved in the development of ecological networks is how to make effective use of existing data and monitoring activities, and how to decide what types of data to use. For example, some LNPs and Wildlife Trusts are engaged in the development of decision-support tools to simplify the process for developing local ecological networks, combining national-level data with local information that can be ‘plugged in’.

These tools can significantly reduce the time and resource investments for LNPs in developing ecological networks, but in the absence of original workshops or consultations, care should be taken in the selection of data, to ensure important local priorities or opportunities are not missed. During the thematic workshop the point was repeatedly raised about the large number of tools that currently exist but are sometimes underutilised due to a lack of awareness or knowledge. LNPs have a key role to play in ensuring the right tools are applied appropriately.

The concept of ecological connectivity requires a clear and transparent understanding of the links between landscape-scale actions and national-scale priorities under Biodiversity 2020. During the thematic evaluation, LNPs suggested they could provide a link between local and national priorities in this respect, by working towards harmonisation of standards for monitoring and reporting (for example, through promotion and capacity-building in the use of national or international standards) as well as coordinating the development of ‘decision-support tools capable of integrating different forms and geographies of data (for example, considering local socio-economic pressures alongside ecological drivers).

Workshop participants noted the possibility to link ecological networks to contemporary concepts in planning and development (e.g. place-shaping and resilience agendas), helping to mainstream the concept of ecological networks.

What are the baseline evidence requirements for an ecological network?

LNPs are typically the local holders of detailed ecological datasets, which can indicate long-term trends in species populations and habitats and provide the basis for establishment of an ecological network. In the LNP discussion group, participants highlighted a range of ways in which LNPs can contribute to the mapping of ecological networks:

■ LNPs could provide an overview of existing mapping approaches and possible advantages or disadvantages (for example: single-species mapping, multi-species mapping, mapping based on different layers or criteria, or opportunity mapping).

■ LNPs could provide advice on how to apply these approaches in practice and how they could be combined (for example, drawing on expert judgement).

■ LNPs could identify gaps in existing approaches and opportunities to address these.

■ LNPs could ensure that all existing data are actually used by local stakeholders.

■ LNPS could then ensure engagement and buy-in from all members in decisions relating to identifying and establishing ecological networks.

Experience from existing projects highlights the need to evaluate a broad evidence base when assessing and developing ecological networks. LNP links to local planning professionals and developers could be utilised effectively. In particular, the importance of socio-economic and climate change influences on the integrity of ecological networks, but there is also a more fundamental question of how to integrate data. Existing examples often adopt a multi-level approach, combining large-scale landscape units with more precise data on specific species and habitats, but a lack of standardised datasets and monitoring processes can create issues in the use of this data. Geographical Information Systems can correct for some of these issues but many users lack the appropriate geo-statistical abilities to align data with geographical conditions. Development of guidance or exchange of best practice relating to these processes would be beneficial at the national scale, and could be coordinated or disseminated by LNPs.


92

How could new types of ecological networks be developed?

Most existing ecological networks in the UK focus on a limited range of terrestrial habitats. There is a need to extend development and implementation to other types of habitat such as freshwater, coastal and marine environments so that patterns of connectivity can be more clearly understood and more effectively managed. In the case of freshwater bodies, for example, there may be significant potential to align LNPs with the Environment Agency’s catchment-based approach and ongoing Integrated Catchment Management Pilots from a perspective of ecological networks. Thinking creatively about such ‘blue-green’ linkages could help to identify new opportunities for strengthening ecological coherence as well as new partners and communities of interest in the water and marine environment. Within Dean Park NIA, £2.1m has been secured from the Catchment Restoration Fund for water quality improvements.

A6.3.4 Useful publications

Most literature relating to design and management of ecological networks focuses on either policy-side drivers, or ecological analysis and management aspects. Comparatively little attention is paid to the ‘day-to-day’ aspects of maintaining an ecological network (for example, addressing issues such as public engagement and volunteering). This gap may be addressed by increasing the exchange of experiences between NIAs, and between LNPs managing ecological networks.

Potentially useful publications include:

■ Making Space for Nature: A Review of England’s Wildlife Areas (2010)29, or the ‘Lawton Review’, provides a good introduction to ecological and policy issues relating to the management of ecological networks in an English context. It identifies the ‘building blocks’ needed to construct an effective ecological network, which it regards as the starting points for analysis of potential networks.

■ Guidance on the Maintenance of Landscape Connectivity Features of Major Fauna and Flora (IEEP, 2007)30 provides an introduction to some of the scientific issues surrounding the design of ecological networks, as well as potential impacts of climate change on the integrity of existing networks and links to EU policy drivers.

■ The Current Status on the Practical Implementation of Ecological Networks in England (Natural England, 2008)31 reviews a range of issues surrounding the implementation of ecological networks- including issues surrounding capacities and policy coordination. Although many of the frameworks it addresses have been superseded, it provides a useful overview of practical and management issues relevant to ecological networks.

■ Monitoring and Evaluation of Nature Improvement Areas (Collingwood Environmental Planning, 2013)32 reviews experience of NIA implementation across England, highlighting particular areas of success measured against NIA Thematic Areas. It also outlines barriers that would need to be addressed within the Second Phase of NIA Implementation- which could point to the potential coordinating role of LNPs.

29 Defra (2010) Making space for nature- a review of Britain’s Wildlife Areas. Accessed online 28.10.2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/making-space-for-nature-a-review-of-englands-wildlife-sites-published-today 30 IEEP (2007) Guidance on the maintenance of landscape connectivity features of major importance. A Report to the European Commission, DG Environment http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/adaptation_fragmentation_guidelines.pdf 31 ECNC (2008) Current status of implementation of ecological networks in England http://www.ecologicalnetworks.eu/documents/publications/ken/EnglandKENWP2.pdf 32 Natural England (2013) NIA Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. Accessed online 28.10.2014 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/funding/nia/monitoringandevaluation.aspx


93

A6.4 LNP funding and resources: examples from LNPs

The paper includes a brief summary of the findings of the LNP evaluation, including funding obtained by LNPs and challenges encountered by LNPs attempting to secure funding. The paper also provides a summary of the discussion at the workshop held with LNPs on 25th June 2014 and considers issues suggested by LNPs about how they could potentially increase the likelihood of successful funding bids. The issues considered are:

■ The funding sources that could potentially help to sustain LNPs, for both core funding and funding for delivery.

■ How LNPs can work together to identify and obtain funding.

■ How LNPs have obtained funding, and the transferable elements of their approach:

– The partners were involved?

– The projects / initiatives funding was obtained for.

– The source of the funding.

– Transferable lessons for other LNPs.

– Summary of workshop discussion

During the June 2014 workshop LNPs discussed and shared ideas and best practice on potential funding streams, and on how best to ensure the sustainability of LNP funding.

LNPs highlighted that securing funding is one of their biggest challenges and that the challenge was closely related to the (potentially perceived) absence of a specific LNP mandate. LNPs felt that they are often excluded from the national level policy discussions at the beginning of policy processes, meaning that it is often difficult to create a defined LNP role at a local level. Without a clear local role it is often difficult to obtain the credibility necessary to secure funding for an LNP.

Several examples of LNPs that have successfully sought funding via innovative methods and from a range of sources were identified during the workshop. The examples are described in this discussion paper alongside some suggestions from LNPs on possible next steps.

A6.4.1 Findings of the LNP evaluation

The following section provides insights from the evaluation findings and draws on some particular examples of LNPs that have successfully secured funding.

LNPs have received funding from a variety of sources

The main sources of LNP funding and staff time / expertise are local government, Defra delivery bodies and environmental NGOs. During interviews with coordinators and chairpersons, local government and local Wildlife Trusts were cited as the primary funders of LNPs. Defra delivery bodies, the Environment Agency and Natural England, were identified as sources of funding for ongoing LNP activities but much less frequently than local government and local Wildlife Trusts. Several LNPs have submitted funding applications to the Heritage Lottery Fund, LIFE+ and other UK and EU funds, but have not yet received notification about the outcome of their applications.

LEPs, community groups and education / research organisations were identified as the main sources of other forms of support. Examples of other forms of support include assistance in preparing bids for EU funds, development of logos and branded material, and provision of meeting rooms and facilities.

The main categories of funding available to LNPs include:

■ Subscribing members.

■ Fees for services (e.g. planning advice; ecological mapping, activities for health sector; activities for business sector etc.).

■ Funding in kind from members including charity organisations (e.g. coordinator role; venue provision, donated/seconded staff time, etc.).


94

■ Secondments from members (business or health members could allocate some marketing or fundraising time perhaps? Is this already happening? Would sectors consider providing sponsorship in return for getting a good profile from doing so?).

■ Funding bids to organisations such as the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Main challenges

Both identifying and obtaining resources for LNPs is a challenge

33 of 35 LNPs encountered significant or very significant challenges associated with finding funding for LNP work. A similar number, 34 of 35, encountered significant or very significant challenges associated with capacity or time constraints.

LNPs made a distinction between obtaining funding for ‘core’ activities, such as maintaining an LNP coordinator, and ‘project’ funding for specific initiatives. Core funding was identified as the more important of the two, as without core funding it less likely that LNPs can maintain the capacity necessary to obtain project funding. Notwithstanding the difficulties associated with obtaining any funding, LNPs considered that project funding is generally more straightforward to obtain as funders are usually willing to fund clearly defined projects. It is more difficult for LNPs to obtain core funding as it is not often obvious what funders will receive in return. An additional complicating factor is the risk that LNPs could be competing against local organisations for funding, a risk that is higher with respect to project funding.

LNPs’ reliance on voluntary contributions of time and resources make it difficult for them to make progress in good time.

Two categories of resources were identified during interviews: ‘core’ resources for the administrative and secretariat functions necessary to sustain an LNP, and ‘project’ resources necessary to deliver initiatives or actions. Core resources were identified as a significantly more urgent priority than project resources. Respondents commented that without core resources it is much more difficult, if not impossible, for LNPs to identify and pursue project resources.

Although many LNPs have managed to secure a funded coordinator on at least a part-time basis, many others have not. Often the individuals acting as coordinators are performing the role on a voluntary basis in addition to a full-time job. LNPs without adequate coordinator support reported that it is extremely difficult to maintain the momentum of the LNP. LNP participants estimated that, as a minimum, LNPs require at least one dedicated full time position to progress the LNP and maintain momentum between meetings. LNP participants emphasised that there is no shortage of expertise or enthusiasm, but that the reliance on voluntary contributions of time and resources make it difficult for LNPs to make progress in good time.

The lack of dedicated coordinator resource available slows everything down and can reduce the extent to which LNPs can engage with other organisations. Engaging with other organisations requires that LNPs have the capacity to follow-up agreed actions and maintain support for joint initiatives. Many expressed doubts that, without the support of a dedicated coordinator, the LNP would continue to make progress. That is, the LNP would not progress beyond the identification of priorities and the preparation of a strategy to a stage where it can effect change.

Almost all LNPs have encountered ‘significant’ or ‘very significant’ challenges associated with finding funding for LNP work, potentially undermining LNPs’ credibility

A majority of LNPs commented that the uncertainty attached to their funding and resources constrains their ability to engage with others; LNPs cannot be sure that voluntary contributions will be maintained and do not want to commit to actions they may not be able to deliver.

Some chairs and coordinators expressed concerns that LNPs would lose senior level support and engagement if they did not start to have an impact. These respondents were concerned that it would become difficult for senior individuals to justify continued support for LNPs if LNPs were not able to move beyond strategizing and towards making an impact.

The lack of resources has, in some cases, prevented LNPs commissioning or identifying evidence necessary to justify a particular initiative. For example, one LNP discussed the difficulty of influencing


95

LEP economic strategies without the evidence necessary to link improvements to the natural environment with positive economic outcomes.

Although some LNPs have obtained some funding almost a third of them, 10 of 35, stated that funding is not at all secure post-2013, while 15 of 35 stated that funding is not very secure post-2013. Only one LNP thought that funding is very secure beyond 2014.

Funding is not secure for the majority of LNPs

LNP participants provided examples of how the lack of funding and capacity is undermining the credibility of the partnerships. In one case, an LNP had established a relationship with the local authority and agreed to provide input to local plans and local plan evidence documents. When the time came to provide input, the LNP did not have the resources available. The LNP member providing the example considered that missing the opportunity to influence local plans has undermined the credibility of the LNP in the eyes of the local authority, and will make it more difficult for the LNP to have an impact in the future.

LNPs’ impact, that is their ability to effect change, is constrained by the limited funding available, and many are experiencing a ‘vicious circle’ of lack of resources and time with priority of organisations being to secure funds for their direct operations, and cuts in public sector. Some modest commitment of funds to each LNP to resource development and to deliver some key element of Biodiversity 2020 could be one way to break the vicious circle. It should be noted that Natural England will require reporting against Biodiversity 2020 targets soon. There is no resource to undertake this work in many areas.

Respondents commented that searching for funding occupies a significant amount of board members’ energy and time, reducing their capacity and ability to deliver on the LNP’s priorities. Accessing grant funding also takes time, slowing LNP progress and potentially undermining the ability of LNPs to keep board members interested and involved.

A6.4.2 Examples of potential sources of funding

LNPs are struggling to identify and secure funding, although there are examples of LNPs that have a reliable income sufficient to sustain their activities. In terms of transferable aspects of successes these include the development of a long-term funding plan, the use of different and innovative funding structures, and the definition of a clear offer or service the LNP can provide to other organisations. Examples of cases where LNPs have sought to address the funding challenges are presented below.

Environment Agency funding opportunities

Significant amounts of money are spent on flood defences, for example it has been estimated that maintaining existing levels of flood defence would require flood defence spending to increase to over £1 billion per year by 2035.33 Specifically the Environment Agency had a budget of £268 million from 2012/2013 for flood and coastal erosion risk management.34

However LNPs pointed out that EA initiatives are not always well coordinated with initiatives that are already underway locally. There may be scope to work with the Environment Agency to increase the multi-functional benefits of spending on flood defence, and by doing so, obtain funding to support LNP activities. The possibility of EA funds is not a reality where these funds are directly linked to capital delivery, many with no allocation to staff time for delivery, let alone support strategic work of LNP.

Co‐ordinating with LA Planning departments to explore funding opportunities

There may be scope to use Section 106 / Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding for natural environment improvements. Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), commonly known as s106 agreements, are a mechanism which make a development proposal acceptable in planning terms, that would not otherwise be acceptable. They are focused on site specific mitigation of the impact of development. S106 agreements are often

33 UK Parliament, 2014, Flood Defence spending in England file:///C:/Users/29661/Downloads/sn05755.pdf 34 Defra, 2014, Defra Funding for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management in England


96

referred to as 'developer contributions' along with highway contributions and the Community Infrastructure Levy.35

LNPs could potentially have a role in identifying potential sites and initiatives, and also for coordinating action between LNP participants and other organisations. There may also be scope for LNPs to provide pre-application advice to developers and to charge for this advice.

Enhancing partnership working with LEPs

Obtaining funding from LEPs is considered to be difficult (see findings from the interim evaluation above). Workshop attendees felt that LNPs should be clear about what they can provide to LEPs rather than looking for funding specifically. That is, LNPs need to communicate a clear ‘offer’ to LEPs before they think about approaching LEPs for funding.

LNPs could proactively and positively identify what it is they can do for LEPs and why precisely LEPs should fund them. Doing so would help to engage LEPs and provide LNPs with the credibility to be considered in planning and development. An example of where this has worked for an LNP is provided in the box below

Box 13 The West of England (Avon Wildlife Trust) LNP – obtaining funding via partnership working with the LEP

The West of England LNP (WENP) set out to create an investment strategy for the natural environment and integrate that into our economic development, spatial planning, and health & wellbeing strategies.

Although the WENP do not believe LNP's should be LEP-centric, the timing of SEP and SIF strategies have meant influencing the LEP has been a priority. The LNP has a good relationship with the LEP CEO joining the LNP Board, however, the relationship remains informal and they have not been able to access the LEP's technical assistance budget for the development of the investment strategy as other LNPs have done. However the West of England LNP has contributed significantly to the LEP's strategic plan which now recognises the need to manage the area’s natural capital as an economic asset. They were able to persuade the LEP to include the strategic intervention of creating a 'Natural Capital Trust' for £330k.

Success in securing LEP support has encouraged 6 partners to agree to fund the LNP for 3 years, each contributing £3,000 - £12,000 p/a in a matrix approach where some provide more in-kind support (e.g. venues for events, expertise) than financial.

Transferable lessons

In this case lessons that are relevant for other LNPS include providing a very specific service or offer for LEPs, contributing in a way that will encourage LEPs to see the investment potential of the natural environment and supporting the LEP in their strategies with in-kind contribution which can lead to credibility and support from businesses and partners.

Health

The thematic evaluation suggests that the public health sector may be a potential source of funding in the future (see the Health discussion paper for description of how LNPs and the local health sector could work together). LNPs could have a role, for example, in working with local service commissioners to increase the amount of exercise undertaken by patients. There was agreement that it would be useful to have a national view of the potential opportunities, and a clear description of the current state of play in the local health sector (including likely changes in the future).

35 Planning advisory service: http://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE More information provided at http://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE#sthash.cfaYnkkm.dpuf


97

There may be scope for LNPs to act as the conduit to the local health sector for natural environment organisations. LNPs could put health and environment organisations in contact with each other, and also help to avoid the local health sector becoming overburdened with requests for information. An example of an LNP that has actively sought engagement with the health sector is provided below.

Box 14 North Yorkshire and York – exploring opportunities for partnership working with the health and well‐being board

The LNP board interacts with the Health and Well-Being Board as well as the LEP Board. Champions have been appointed within the LNP for different topic areas including health. While funding for the LNP is secure until March of next year, the challenge is to sustain the funding beyond this period. Funding currently comes from membership fees paid by the board however the LNP has begun exploring the opportunity of gaining funding form the Health and Well-being Board through joined up activity and co-ordination of work that will achieve health and environmental objectives, potentially encouraging the local public to engage with their natural environment in a sustainable way.


Relevant lessons for other LNPs include exploring funding opportunities through designated champions and pursuing possibilities of joint working in areas that can be mutually beneficial for health and the environment.

Fees from members – providing a niche service

LNPs may be able to charge membership fees. It is unlikely to be suitable for all LNPs (particularly those currently unable to provide services), however in some cases LNPs have been able to offer a specific role or service and charge for the provision of the service. An example is provided below.

Box 15 Humber LNP – providing a niche service

The Humber LNP is a not-for-profit private company who employ their own staff and is funded by its member’s subscription fees. It also generates income from managing and hosting projects that benefits its members. Members include approximately 30 environmental / conservation organisations and 30 industry organisations. Fees are received from approximately 40 organisations Total projected income in 2014 is £130,000. Two key factors which enable Humber LNP to charge for its services include:

■ The identification of a specific ‘niche’ within which it operates.

Members have access to the expertise of others in the group, and can access a funded coordinator that will help them work though any natural environment issues they have. This includes, for example, preparing planning applications, identifying potential sites for habitat creation, keeping up to date with regulatory requirements related to natural environment.

■ Concentration of its efforts on the delivery of valued services to its membership:

– Provision of ecological advice – Involvement in pre-application planning discussions – Development of practical conservation projects on industry owned land

The Humber LNP has three distinct income streams:

■ Membership fees

Fee is based on organisation’s size (land ownership and employees) and estimation of how frequently the organisation is likely to avail of the LNP’s services. Fees range from £100 to £5,500 per year.

■ Contributions by Relevant Authorities

Relevant Authorities include Defra, Environment Agency, Natural England, local authorities, internal drainage boards and others with responsibilities under the Habitats Regulations to ensure the Humber Estuary European Marine site achieves ‘favourable condition’. Voluntary contributions based on the Relevant Authorities’ responsibility and geographic coverage. Contributions range from £90 to £8,000 per year.

■ Project work

Management fees received in payment for managing of partnership projects. Includes contributions from


98

partners and grant applications. Projects have included:

– Hosting the ‘Netgain’ project on Marine Conservation Zones for Natural England. – Organising a suite of ecological survey work in the South Humber Gateway. – Research to better understand the impacts of recreation on the Humber’s bird population.


The Humber is a designated area which is focused on nature but also has plays an important economic role. The designation has provided the opportunity for the LNP to act as an ‘honest broker’ between environment groups and businesses, and to deliver services that both groups value. Although a relatively unique situation there may be transferable lessons for other LNPs: carving out a specific service that can be offered to add value, playing a co-ordination role by assessing queries and directing members to other organisations if needed and hosting ad hoc projects.

Changing the legal structure to operate more independently

Several LNPs have created a new legal structure to enable them to operate independently and as a way of becoming increasingly attractive to investors. However LNPs stressed that for many there is no appetite to form a not-for profit company, particularly as it is considered difficult to do so. In addition LNPs stressed that if they were to do so they would need to have a very clear mandate and role for investors. One example where this has been done successfully is described below.

Box 16 Wild Anglia LNP – creating a new structure ‐ Community Interest Company

The Wild Anglia LNP considered a few different structures including a charity, not for profit, loose partnership and company limited by guarantee. The LNP wanted to move away from the partnership model common in local authorities and decided that, in the long term, they would have to operate as a business to become self-sufficient. The LNP received support from Norfolk County Council, but the systems and policies necessary to run such a large organisation as a council were found to constrain the LNP. As a result the LNP decided to operate independently of the council.

Wild Anglia is now a Community Interest Company - a not for profit company limited by guarantee. It has a board of directors (9 people from business, local authority, nature conservation, media, commerce, health and tourism) and has scope for a wider membership. The LNP suggests that the community benefit statement and the presence of a regulator (of CICs) will make them more attractive to funders.

The LNP continues to experience a funding deficit but are confident that in the long term the new model will help Wild Anglia obtain the funding it requires.


For some LNPs this will not be a viable option, however there may be lessons for others who would prefer to operate on a more independent basis and can learn by researching different legal structures.

Engaging with local businesses

There may be scope for LNPs to exploit corporate social responsibility (CSR) opportunities with businesses that want to enhance the local natural environment. LNPs could, for example, provide branding for businesses to use to alert customers that they contribute to the local environment. LNPs may have to ensure that such activity doesn’t overlap with similar activity undertaken by LNP members.

During the workshop it was also suggested that in some cases local businesses may also be able to provide in-kind funding to support LNPs. One LNP has received staff time from John Lewis as part of its CSR activities. Another example is provided below.

Box 17 Bedfordshire LNP – seeking support from local businesses

The LNP received historical funding from the previous organisation and some left-over funding from central Bedfordshire that was transferred to support the LNP. The LNP has been less successful in securing


99

membership fees, however corporate sponsorship will be sought with businesses once they have a defined mandate or prospectus.


This case shows that engaging with businesses in the local area and assessing whether corporate sponsorship is an option can be fruitful.

Other potential funding sources:

Other potential funding opportunities identified during the workshop discussion include:

■ In-kind funding, e.g. provision of meeting spaces/secondments/university placements/working groups that can provide advice. There is a wide range of in-kind support potentially available. Direct fundraising ideas include a Waitrose fundraising box and business sponsorship.

■ Directing NELM funding for local objectives and exploring opportunities in the marine sector was suggested by participants.

■ Looking at the possibility of LAGs for funding.

■ LIFE/HLF/Intereg (for LIFE bids there was a suggestion that this would need to be co-ordinated on a national level on behalf of all LNPs, perhaps led by Defra?

■ If Defra / BIS / other government agencies have specific expectations or projects, the LNPs could help to deliver these for a fee.

■ Payment for ecosystem services could be a possibility of raising funding – LNPs could take a percentage for LNP core funds e.g. a carbon offset scheme that is delivered locally. ‘Local sites’ monitoring could become an LNP role and perhaps enable them to harness funding.

■ Funding may be available from public health or from Health and Well-being Boards for specific projects e.g. helping to achieve aims around utilising green space.

■ Minimum standards: it was noted that funding and resources will largely dictate an LNP’s activity. Where there is limited or minimum funding, action may be restricted. Thus should there be an understanding (across LNPs?) of minimum standards for their core purpose, for example on coordination of the partnership?

■ Marketing and fund-raising support: LNPs may be in need of skills and time for fundraising and marketing. Can business members and contacts amongst LNPs be harnessed for some donated or seconded time for this? This could be an important way in which businesses could support an LNP – even limited time commitments may provide significant help to the LNP.

A6.4.3 Next steps

Several suggestions were put forward on potential actions or next steps. In particular, some next steps that were suggested for LNPs to consider included:

■ Exploring the creation of a national network: LNPs raised the possibility of setting up a national network to share ideas and opportunities, perhaps via a website, although it will be important to consider how this will be managed and how certain standards and protocols will be enforced. Support is likely to be required from Defra.

■ Exploring provision of shared services: There was suggestion that there may be scope for LNPs to provide a shared service to councils, and to obtain funding from more than one council. It was suggested that this may be sufficient to provide a baseline for coordination funding.

■ Making the most of local context: The local context is important as funding opportunities are different in each area. The LNP structure can influence how funding is attracted and spent and identifying objectives per sector may help LNPs focus their search for funding.


100

A6.5 LNPs and the local health sector: working together to protect and enhance the natural environment and deliver positive health outcomes

The paper includes a brief summary of the policy context about the links between the natural environment and health and an overview of the LNP evaluation findings. It is based on an evidence review, interviews with LNPs and a workshop with LNPs and subsequent desk research. The workshop was attended by representatives of five LNPs, Defra, Natural England and Public Health England. The paper discusses how LNPs could potentially engage with the local health sector on natural environment issues. The issues considered are:

■ Awareness levels among LNPs about the contribution of the natural environment to health and wellbeing.

■ The aspect(s) of the natural environment LNPs should focus to impact the health agenda.

■ The aspect(s) of the health agenda LNPs should focus on.

■ The barriers to engaging with the health sector, and how they may be overcome.

■ Current LNPs initiatives to enhance local health and wellbeing.

■ Data available on health related natural environment issue.


The role of LNPs in health and wellbeing

Recent policy documents on the natural environment makes explicit links to health and well-being. The 2011 Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP)36 highlighted a need for local areas to work in a joined up and strategic way to help manage the natural environment. The ambition for LNPs is that they promote joined-up partnership action and help their local area to manage the natural environment as a system and to embed its value in local decisions for the benefit of nature, people and the economy.

The NEWP states that “from April 2013, Directors of Public Health will be employed within upper tier and unitary local authorities. They will be ideally placed to influence local services, for example joining up activity on rights of way, countryside access and green space management to improve public health by connecting people with nature. Local Nature Partnerships and the Health and Wellbeing Boards should actively seek to engage each other in their work.”.

In a 2012 report37 Defra stated that the overall purpose of an LNP is to:

■ Drive positive change in the local natural environment, taking a strategic view of the challenges and opportunities involved and identifying ways to manage it as a system for the benefit of nature, people and the economy.

■ Contribute to achieving the Government’s national environmental objectives locally, including the identification of local ecological networks, alongside addressing local priorities.

■ Become local champions influencing decision-making relating to the natural environment and its value to social and economic outcomes, in particular, through working closely with local authorities, LEPs and Health and Wellbeing Boards.

The local health landscape

The natural environment is part of the current England public health strategy. Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Our strategy for public health in England explicitly recognises the environment (natural and built) has a key determinant of health. It states that: “the quality of the environment around us also

36 Defra (2011) The Natural Choice: Securing the value of nature. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228842/8082.pdf 37 Defra (2012) An overview of the Local Nature Partnership role. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192580/local-nature-partnerships-overview120402.pdf


101

affects any community. Pollution, air quality, noise, the availability of green and open spaces. Local communities will be empowered to design communities for active ageing and sustainability. This will include protecting green spaces, volunteer led walk programmes, promoting community ownership of green spaces and improved access to land.”.

The Sustainable Development Strategy for the NHS, Public Health and Social Care system aims to promote a healthier environment by valuing and enhancing natural resources, while also reducing harmful pollution and significantly reducing carbon emissions. It also aims to contribute to healthy lives and healthy communities by ensuring that decisions taken across the health and care system help build the immediate and longer term benefits of helping people to be well and reduce their care needs (e.g. by improved information, more integrated approaches and smarter more aligned incentives that help minimise preventable ill-health, health inequalities and unnecessary treatment).

The new local health commissioning framework offers scope for public health decisions to consider the natural environment. Following the implementation of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the landscape for commissioning health care in England has changed significantly. NHS England and 211 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) have replaced the previous Primary Care Trusts / Strategic Health Authority structure. They are supported by commissioning support units in most areas of the country providing a range of commissioning functions. New arrangements for public health have seen the creation of a new body, Public Health England (PHE) with responsibility for supporting and protecting the health of the nation whilst Directors of Public Health (DPH), along with their local health and wellbeing portfolios have transferred into upper tier local authorities. To support the patient voice, Healthwatch England, a national body, has been established with local presences in each upper tier Local Authority.

The Act and what has followed has also seen the creation of a number of partnerships and planning boards, with a range of formal and informal underpinnings. Most formally, each upper-tier local authority has established a Health and Well Being Board (H&WBB) bringing the commissioners of health and well-being services together with local councillors and the DPH to set medium term goals that can then be reflected in the commissioning work of health and other public sector organisations.

Key bodies in the local health sector

■ NHS England ■ 211 Clinical Commissioning Groups ■ Commissioning Support Units ■ 27 Area Teams ■ Health and Wellbeing Boards ■ Health Education England ■ HealthWatch England ■ Monitor ■ Public Health England

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 introduced duties and powers for H&WBBs in relation to Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs) and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies (JHWSs).

The Department of Health has published Statutory Guidance on JSNAs and JHWSs38, which demonstrates the potential for natural environment stakeholders to contribute to their production and delivery.

Local authorities and CCGs have equal and joint duties to prepare JSNAs and JHWSs, through the H&WBB. CCGs must involve the H&WBB in preparing (or making significant changes to) their commissioning plans.

The purpose of JSNAs and JHWSs is to improve the health and wellbeing of the local community and reduce inequalities for all ages. Their outputs, in the form of evidence and the analysis of needs, and agreed priorities, will be used to help to determine what actions local authorities, the local NHS and

38 Department of Health (2013) Statutory Guidance on Joint Strategic Needs and Health and Wellbeing Strategies. Accessed online 28.10.2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223842/Statutory-Guidance-on-Joint-Strategic-Needs-Assessments-and-Joint-Health-and-Wellbeing-Strategies-March-2013.pdf


102

other partners need to take to meet health and social care needs, and to address the wider determinants that impact on health and wellbeing.

Local authorities and H&WBB can decide to include additional members on the board beyond the core members. Boards also need to work with a wide range of local partners and the community beyond the board’s membership, in order to gain evidence and expertise.

The guidance states that JSNAs need to consider wider social, environmental and economic factors that impact on health and wellbeing, such as access to green space, the impact of climate change, and air quality. It also says that H&WBB should work closely with other local partners such as, Local Nature Partnerships, Environmental Health Officers, and local planning authorities. Such partners can both input evidence into JSNAs to get a thorough understanding of local needs and how to address them, as well as take action to contribute to meeting aims of JHWSs.

The natural environment‘s contribution for improved health and wellbeing.

The contribution of the natural environment is well-known and there is a considerable opportunity for contribution to improved health and wellbeing. The rationale for the role of the natural environment for improved health and wellbeing is well set out in the Natural England paper, Healthy Green Spaces - Healthy People39. It states that because the natural environment is a significant determinant of health, LNPs have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the role of the H&WBBs in assessing local health needs and contributing to JSNA and joint health and wellbeing strategies.

The key contribution to health and wellbeing is green space. The new public health outcomes framework (2013)40 includes the indicator: Utilisation of green space for exercise/health reasons. This comes under improvements against wider factors that affect health and wellbeing and health inequalities.

A Natural England paper discusses why the natural environment should form an integral part of public health and sets out five key issues41:

■ Green space for reducing health inequalities: income-related inequality in health is affected by exposure to green space. The long-term conditions of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and dementia are much more prevalent in deprived communities which often have the least access to green space.

■ The close relationship between the social and economic determinants of health is also clearly stated in the Natural England report, Natural Solutions for Tackling Health Inequalities by UCL Institute of Health Equity. It cites evidence that income-related health inequalities are lower for those living in the greenest areas, which means that green space may mitigate some of the negative health impacts of relative poverty. It highlights other research showing that people living in areas with large amounts of green space are three times more likely to be physically active than people living in areas of little green space. Also, disadvantaged people who live in areas with large amounts of green space may be more likely to use their local green spaces and be more physically active, thus experiencing better health outcomes than those of a similar level of disadvantage with less good access.

■ Some groups are least likely to visit the natural environment42: Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups; those living in urban areas with high deprivation; category D (semi and unskilled manual workers) and E (state pensioners, casual or low grade workers and unemployed with state benefits only) socio-economic groups; people aged 65 and over; and people with disabilities and/or long term health conditions.

39 Natural England (2014) Healthy Green Spaces, Healthy People. Accessed online 28.10.2014 http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/Images/Rachel%20Penny%20presentation%20with%20notes_tcm6-32456.pdf 40 Department of Health (2014) Improving outcomes and supporting transparency. Accessed online 28.10.2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263658/2901502_PHOF_Improving_Outcomes_PT1A_v1_1.pdf 41 Natural England (2014) NE Health Information Pack. Accessed online 28.10.2014 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/health-information-pack_tcm6-31487.pdf 42 Natural England (2013) Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey 2009-2013.


103

■ Other Natural England research demonstrates inequality in respect to children visiting natural environments. Whilst 68 per cent of all children visited natural environments at least once a week, there are inequalities related to ethnicity and household income. This is important because children who live close to green spaces have higher levels of physical activity and are less likely to experience an increase in BMI over time.

■ Green space for prevention and cost effectiveness: green space plays an important role in delivering a cost effective and joined up service providing underlying support for fundamental determinants of health. Visiting green space is associated with less stress-related illness and has a positive effect on a persons’ mental health.

■ Green space for stronger communities: time spent in nature has a hugely positive impact on key social indicators. In particular, community open space can enhance social ties, provide a sense of community and can promote social integration within disadvantaged communities.

■ Green space for active lifestyles: increasing access to the natural environment can play a vital role in efforts to increase activity and reduce obesity. The ability to access green settings has been demonstrated to encourage contact with nature and participation in physical activity, both of which encourage the adoption of other healthy lifestyle choices such as social engagement and consumption of healthy foods.

■ A National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) paper states that physical activity not only contributes to wellbeing, it is essential for good health. NICE public health guidance, on the promotion and creation of physical environments that support increased levels of physical activity, recommend that cycling and walking should be prompted by planning decisions, transport, access to open spaces, and design of workplaces43.

■ Public Health England (PHE) recognises the benefit for health of an environment where people actively choose to walk and cycle as part of everyday life. The PHE Healthy People, Healthy Places programme44 aims to reduce to reduce the impact of a poor physical and natural environment.

■ Green space for mental wellbeing: natural environments have a beneficial impact on mental wellbeing. Trees and vegetation reduce ambient noise, improve naturalness, provide calming views and convey a sense of place and belonging. Greenspace helps facilitate water, land and nature based hobbies.

■ The natural environment also has wider benefits for physical health. The 2014 Natural England report on Microeconomic Evidence for the Benefits of Investment in the Environment45 suggests that the natural environment provides physical health benefits through improvements in air quality, noise and temperature regulation. The natural environment can also reduce the impacts of extreme events such as flooding, which negatively impact on people’s welfare. Also, green infrastructure can contribute to a healthy productive population46.

A6.5.2 Key findings from the LNP evaluation

Main successes

The majority of LNPs have plans to work on issues related to local public health and wellbeing. LNPs are keen to engage with the local health sector, and have a good understanding of the potential health benefits of improving access to, and use of, the natural environment. There is a general consensus

43 Natural Institute of Clinical Excellence (2014). Accessed 28.10.2014 http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11917/38983/38983.pdf 44 Public Health England (2014) Healthy People Healthy Places: Building a Healthy Future. Accessed online 28.10.2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/healthy-people-healthy-places-building-a-healthy-future 45 Natural England (2014) Microeconomic Benefits of Investing in the Natural Environment. Accessed online 28.10.2014 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6692039286587392 46 Defra (2014) To what extent does green infrastructure improvement act as a catalyst for economic growth? Accessed 28.10.2014 http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Completed=0&Location=None&Menu=Menu&Module=More&ProjectID=19056


104

among LNP participants that LNPs would benefit from input from organisations not typically associated with environmental work, such as organisations from the local health sector. Approximately a fifth of LNPs indicated that organisations in the local health sector could potentially offer a source of LNP funding in the future.

Several LNPs are making progress engaging the health sector. Around a third of LNPs have successfully engaged with organisations in the local health sector, helping to raise awareness of the value of the natural environment with local health and wellbeing boards. It should be noted that the LNPs are partnerships, not separate organisations in their own right. This is a great strength as it works with many partners and can draw in expertise and engagement from a wide range of organisations and individuals. There is a huge value in bringing together partners to agree environmental objectives, and it is necessary process to develop better ecological networks.

Examples of success

Some LNPs have raised awareness of the value of the natural environment with the local health and wellbeing board and farming interests. In one case an LNP board member gave a talk that inspired the health team of the local council to set up a workshop on health and the environment.

■ One LNP shared newly commissioned information to the local health and wellbeing board, which was used in the preparation of a joint strategic needs assessment.

■ One LNP has a heath sector representative from County Council Public Health team, the Consultant in Public Health and Wider determinants of Health. The health representative liaises with other contacts in first tier authorities to ensure all are involved in the LNP strategic work and development.

■ LNPs also provided examples of other organisations that they have influenced, for example engaging with a group of local authorities in the preparation of a green infrastructure strategy and influencing how the strategy will be delivered, influencing a Local Health and Wellbeing Board’s agenda, and helping to improve the management of a National Park.

■ In some cases LNPs have contributed to the better implementation of actions that improve natural areas. One operates a small grant fund to fund projects that help promote health and wellbeing through the use of green space. Grants have been provided and projects are currently being implemented by LNP members.

■ In a collaborative project, one LNP is working with the local commissioning group (part of clinical commissioning group for Cambridgeshire) and GP forum to raise profile of what natural environment resources are available and demonstrate how the LNP can support local health.

The reach that LNP partners and linked groups such as LBAP partnerships have into a wide range of locally focussed organisations, groups and individuals brings a great strength to engaging people in addressing both health and environmental needs in unison. Partners in one LNP are actively undertaking a range of projects which address health issues in urban and rural communities. This has still to be developed at practitioner level and clinical commissioning, and some efforts to engage particular GP surgeries in particular practical environmental projects have been unsuccessful to date.

Main challenges

A significant proportion of LNP participants identified engaging with the health sector as an issue they would like to see covered in the thematic evaluation. During the interviews, respondents commented that organisations most involved with LNPs are those traditionally working on improvements to the natural environment. The same respondents considered that their respective LNPs would benefit from the contributions of other organisations not typically associated with environmental work, such as organisations from the health sector.

However, many LNPs have found it difficult to identify who to engage with in the local health sector, and to make the natural environment relevant to people and organisations in the sector. Some chairpersons and coordinators are unsure about how to engage with public health related organisations as they do not have a good understanding about how the natural environment and public health sectors could work together to address issues of mutual interest. The lack of


105

engagement with health sector has, in the opinion of some LNP participants, constrained LNPs’ ability to work on health related issues.

During the interviews a small number of respondents expressed some frustration at LNPs’ lack of focus on health priorities. The majority of LNPs (33 of 35) have a priority related to public health and well-being, but only 13 of 35 have started to make any progress against health related priorities.

A6.5.3 Key issues discussed at the thematic workshop

This section sets out key issues for the role and actions of LNPs in respect to their work with public health. The issues emerged from discussions amongst participants at the workshop on LNPs and the local health sector, where representatives from five LNPs were present.

Presentations at the workshop

Discussion followed presentations from Natural England and Devon LNP.

Jim Burt (Principal Adviser, Outdoor Learning and Outdoors for All Programmes, Natural England) used data from the MENE to demonstrate how population groups have differential access to a good quality natural environment (see Box 18). It highlighted that local green space is of importance for marginal and deprived population groups.

Box 18 Evidence from Monitoring Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE)

Jim Burt (Principal Adviser, Outdoor Learning and Outdoors for All Programmes, Natural England) used data from the MENE to demonstrate how population groups have differential access to a good quality natural environment and how this contributes to health and other inequalities. This is a key issue for Natural England in the context of their role to work with partners to provide evidence that helps clarify the scale and nature of people’s needs, to help improve the quality and targeting of their services, to increase the range of people experiencing the benefits of the natural environment. Differential access to the natural environment is important because people who live close to green space experience better health outcomes and live longer, regardless of socio-economic status.

Key points emerging from the MENE are as follows:

■ Locally accessible green space is a critical resource: 68 per cent of all visits by adults to the natural environment are within two miles of home. For children, the most frequently visited places are ‘managed’ local places e.g. urban parks (47 per cent), playgrounds (29 per cent) and playing fields. The least frequently visited places are ‘less managed’ local places e.g. woodland (11 per cent) or places further afield e.g. country parks (16 per cent).

■ Access to green space is not available to all. The most affluent 20 per cent of wards in England have five times the amount of green space compared with the most deprived 10 per cent. Use of green space is lowest in those groups where health needs are often greatest.

■ The Black and Minority Ethnic population make less than half of the average annual visits to the natural environment compared to the English adult population as a whole. The urban deprived make less than two-thirds of the visits compared to the whole population.

The South Pennines provides a good example of the contrasts in access to the natural environment. Residents of South Pennines take on average 10 times more visits to the natural environment than residents of the former industrial towns around the South Pennines (the catchment area). Residents of the catchment area are more likely than people living in the South Pennines to be in the least affluent socio-economic groups, to be members of the BAME population, and to live in urban and deprived areas. Nearly all of the BAME population from the catchment area lived in urban areas (99 per cent) and nearly half (4 per cent) lived in deprived areas. Over half of visits to the natural environment by low-income residents of the catchment area involved a journey of less than a mile; nearly 80 per cent were taken on foot and only 6 per cent of visits were to the South Pennines. Around a third of visits included an urban park and 16 per cent included a country park.

Participants noted that the MENE data reviewed to date is a national summary and there is a need to assess the data per district to make full use of it.

Patsy Temple and Sue Goodfellow from Devon LNP presented Devon’s work to increase the number and diversity of people being ‘naturally active’ in the County (see Box 19). Research in Devon


106

reinforces the message from Natural England about how marginal and deprived communities are more likely to access local green space such as parks or playing fields, mainly within walking distance. The Devon LNP therefore examined the barriers to accessing green space further afield in the area.

Box 19 The Devon LNP The Devon LNP has seven priority themes one of which is Naturally Healthy, that aims to ensure everyone in Devon has the opportunity and confidence to be ‘naturally active’ in order to improve their health and wellbeing. The goal is to champion Devon’s natural environment as a way of promoting health equality and improving health, with a focus on those at risk of or suffering from poor health in order to reduce dependence on treatments and health services, those who do not currently engage with the natural environment, and children and young people along with their families and schools.

The LNP has established good working relationships with public health in Devon. The Naturally Healthy Task and Finish Group sets the direction on the Naturally Healthy priority theme and is led by the Devon County Council public health team. Also, the Executive Director of Devon Public Health is a member of the LNP Board, representing the Devon Health and Wellbeing Board and the Naturally Healthy theme.

The LNP signed a Compact with Devon H&WBB Board in March 2014. The shared aim is to maximise the health and wellbeing impact of the natural environment in Devon through shared strategic approaches. These approaches include: that the Devon H&WBB Board and the LNP commit to making explicit strategic objectives in both the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy and the LNPs Prospectus and delivery plan; that through the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment data and evidence will be shared and promoted; and that commissioning plans of both the Devon H&WBB Board and the LNP will set out relevant actions as appropriate.

The Naturally Health group has commissioned evidence on the barriers to accessing the natural environment and solutions to promote better access. The report, Reconnecting People and Nature (2012) looked at how communities engage with the natural environment, the barriers to engagement, and if there are inequalities of engagement for particular sectors of the community and how these can be addressed. It found that lack of engagement follows national trends with limited activity across Devon to encourage under‐represented groups.

More recently, Devon LNP commissioned research on access to green space in terms of perceptions, motivators, and barriers and limitations to access. Research participants were mostly low-income people living in an area of deprivation with access to green space. The study found that:

■ Perceptions were often that local green space was the local park or playing field, mainly within walking distance.

■ Barriers to accessing green space beyond walking distance were practical issues (lack of car, cost of public transport), support/motivation issues, lack of awareness of where to go/what to do, not being in habit of accessing green space.

■ Solutions for increasing access to green space were increased information and awareness about what is available, more family based learning and action activities in local woods/forests, coordinated visits to key natural assets run by community groups, working with transport providers to overcome access issues, addressing vulnerability and isolation concerns in remote spots, and addressing safety and cleanliness concerns in local green spaces.

Devon LNP is using this research to offer target groups reasons for accessing green space. The LNP will do this by directing and shaping the services of partners. The LNP is therefore providing a brokering role whereby partners are invited to take actions based on the information gathered.

Key messages

The following sets out the key messages, experiences and ideas offered by participants at the workshop.

The role of LNP ■ LNPs should exploit their unique role in offering holistic, multi-disciplinary thinking to help embrace

the diverse connections between health, wellbeing and engagement with nature. This is crucial in developing coherent and coordinated multi-stakeholder service offers to commissioners.

■ Through local networks and face-to-face contact with communities LNP partners can play a strong role in directly engaging with communities on the natural environment and health; not just working with professionals and strategic policy issues. LNPs and their members can help galvanise active communities and active citizens in wildlife and green space projects. This brings mental health,


107

wellbeing and physical health benefits even though these may not be officially recognised outputs in some projects. LNPs and their members should recognise the role they can play in mobilising people’s participation and the associated health benefits.

■ LNPs can provide the intelligence and platform for partners to build service offers – a kind of brokering role. The example from Devon LNP showed that the LNP can raise awareness of the barriers to accessing green space, which can then be addressed by others (e.g. public transport or walking maps).

■ LNPs should demonstrate the value of collaborative working with the health sector, which is likely to produce solutions and opportunities. LNPs could explain and celebrate some examples.

Working with the health sector ■ LNPs should consider what they can offer to health stakeholders as well as attempting to influence

the health agenda. LNPs could review the various needs of health bodies in their area. LNPs could then identify where engagement with nature can help meet those needs, and where LNP actions can achieve this.

■ Engaging the health sector could begin by identifying a member of the LNP board with an interest in physical activity.

■ LNPs should prioritise working with the public health sector as public health practitioners are likely to be more open to understanding the mutually positive links between health and nature.

■ Health bodies and LNPs both aspire to increase use and provision of green space in terms of impact on physical activity. Joint working on green space provision can offer savings to the NHS in preventative care. At the same time, people’s health needs can inform planning for green infrastructure e.g. accessible green space for physical activity.

■ Treating long-term conditions of human health are an important aspect of nature’s contribution to physical and mental health. Examples exist on this which could help LNPs make the case.

■ Some health practitioners and health sector measures don’t prioritise the natural environment and don’t see the immediate cost-benefit issues, for example, ‘how much can the NHS save by this intervention?’

■ Resources from public health and NHS budgets are available for projects and services related the natural environment. However, there is some uncertainty at present because the local authority public health budget is ring-fenced only until 2016.

■ A barrier to engagement with the health sector is limited capacity of LNPs and the geographic scope of Health and Wellbeing Boards, which often do not match-up well with LNP areas.

Monitoring and evaluation ■ There is a need to identify evaluation measures on nature’s contribution to health and wellbeing so

these are readily apparent for LNPs to use.

■ A measure of physical activity levels may be sufficient evidence to justify the relevant health benefits of nature.

■ LNPs can also utilise the MENE to demonstrate baselines and progress with levels of access to the natural environment.

Potential areas of work for LNPs ■ LNPs must consider the extent to which they work to improve access and use of green space at

an immediately local level (e.g. green space within walking distance, such as local parks and other local managed places) or at a larger scale. While green space can have benefits for physical activity and mental wellbeing, much evidence exists to show that green space with richer wildlife provides greater benefits, especially for mental wellbeing. The factors which affect people’s use of green space differ considerably between these two approaches.

■ One view is that LNPs could consider beginning with encouraging engagement with green space and the outdoor environment. Experiencing wildlife-rich areas has many additional benefits but this should not be seen as the automatic starting point, otherwise more achievable opportunities may be missed for linking people with ordinary nature and green space which is not of high wildlife


108

value. Ecological networks are equally important in urban settings and we need to make urban areas more permeable for nature and more nature friendly for people. This may include delivering green space for people where there is a recognised health need in terms of a network rather than just a single green space.

■ LNPs could develop programmes to offer to schools for outdoor learning. This could build upon the Natural Connections Demonstration Project, funded by Defra, Natural England and English Heritage. The project aims to stimulate the demand from schools and teachers for learning outside the classroom in natural environments (LINE); support schools and teachers in building LINE into their planning and practices; stimulate the supply of high quality LINE services for schools and teachers. The project is supported through a brokerage system to link schools with outdoor activity providers, a dedicated web service for easy access to resources and activities that support LINE, and linking skilled volunteers from a variety of backgrounds to schools. However, some LNPs felt that such projects are best suited to their constituent partners rather than the more strategic focus of LNPs themselves.

■ Health needs amongst a local population can help determine where to plan for new green space and green infrastructure; for example, where to plan for green infrastructure to provide the most benefits for public accessibility.

■ Within the health sector, key drivers for nature engagement are mental health improvements and physical activity. LNPs could consider what actions to take on these matters in relation to the scope of Defra’s interests and Public Health England’s agenda. LNPs need to distinguish the measures they take and the messages they convey on these activities.

■ Central to engagement are interventions to connect people back to nature, including walking for health, community garden projects, urban farming, care farming, practical conservation projects, environmental art, roof gardens with environmental education etc. There is huge potential for commissioning health services in these areas.

■ Public Health England is working with local and national partners to develop a practical approach to increase levels of physical activity in local communities. A consultation on the National Physical Activity Framework took place in April 2014 to gather experience and knowledge within national and local organisations and individuals to create an approach built on ‘what works’ in real communities. This aligns with the government’s ‘Moving More, Living More’ commitment. One of the areas for action in the current Moving More, Living More document is for a cross-sector commitment to providing the right physical environment for people, so embracing physical activity becomes a natural part of their daily life.

■ Deprivation issues are readily understood by councillors and local decision makers and the need for green space and for experiencing nature is often part of the solution to addressing deprivation. Tackling social factors may also provide opportunities to introduce nature conservation activity and for people’s engagement with nature. Developing an assessment of environmental deprivation and demonstrating to local politician that environmental deprivation is as important as health inequality, are some of the ways that LNPs can contribute.

■ LNPs are well-placed to develop conservation volunteering programmes. Health and natural environment could bring together volunteering programmes where participants carry out outdoor work. This would have health benefits (through physical activity), employability/skills development benefits, and environmental benefits. One mechanism would be for GPs to refer patients to programmes (for example, care farming), related funding may be available from the NHS. The role of the LNP could be to offer clinical commissioning groups / GPs a coherent volunteering package which worked to health outcomes and was understood by clinicians.

■ LNPs should not attempt to ‘reinvent the wheel’ with initiatives; they can make use of existing initiatives and align them at the local level to make them work harder at this level (e.g. physical activity messages could be developed through Change4Life).


Statutory Guidance on JSNAs and JHWSs: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223842/Statutory-


109

Guidance-on-Joint-Strategic-Needs-Assessments-and-Joint-Health-and-Wellbeing-Strategies-March-2013.pdf

Defra Network Offer to LEPs and City Deals: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/defra-network-offer_tcm6-35836.pdf

NHS Local Authority information packs; to provide Health and Wellbeing partners with a summary of their current position on outcomes to support commissioners working together to set the priorities for the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy and CCG Strategic Plans: http://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/sop/la-pcks/

Local Government Association report on the Health and Wellbeing Systems Improvement Programme 2013/14: http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/health/-/journal_content/56/10180/6157985/ARTICLE

The Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) survey, funded by Natural England, with support from Defra and the Forestry Commission, provides trend data on how people use the natural environment in England: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/evidence/mene.aspx

Gloucestershire Toolkit, guide to creating active environments: http://www.gloucestershireccg.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Active-Planning-Toolkit-2.pdf

Natural England information pack to help the health sector understand and recognise the health and wellbeing benefits derived from natural environments: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/health-information-pack_tcm6-31487.pdf

Public Health England's Healthy People, Healthy Places programme: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/healthy-people-healthy-places-building-a-healthy-future

Natural England report on Microeconomic Evidence for the Benefits of Investment in the Environment: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6692039286587392

Devon Local nature Partnership compact with the Devon Health and Wellbeing Board: http://www.naturaldevon.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/20140306161234791.pdf

The Devon state of the environment report: http://www.naturaldevon.org.uk/state-of-environment/

Public Health Devon behaviour change scoping: http://www.naturaldevon.org.uk/priorities-and-projects/naturally-healthy/


110

A6.6 LNPs and LEPs: working together to protect and enhance the natural environment and strengthen the economy

This paper includes a brief summary of the expected synergies between LEPs and LNP, an overview of the LNP evaluation findings, and examples of the main successes and challenges LNPs have encountered when engaging with LEPs. It also includes discussion of themes raised by LNP members, chairpersons and coordinators, and summarises the proceedings of a thematic workshop held in June 2014. The workshop was attended by11 LNP participants and a Defra representative.


There is an expectation that LNPs and LEPs will work together

The 2011 Natural Environment White Paper47 highlighted a need for local areas to work in a joined up and strategic way to help manage the natural environment. The ambition for LNPs is that they promote joined-up partnership action and help their local area to manage the natural environment as a system and to embed its value in local decisions for the benefit of nature, people and the economy at the planning and decision-making stage. The White Paper states as such:

“We expect them [LEPs and LNPs] to work in a co-operative and constructive fashion to drive forward green growth locally. Together they can help create the conditions needed for thriving local enterprise, innovation and inward investment – all of which can benefit from and contribute to, a better natural environment. We would encourage LEPs and Local Nature Partnerships to work together to forge strong links that capture the value of nature. LEPs and Local Nature Partnerships may arrange reciprocal representation, but local discretion would apply here.”

In addition, the Government, in the same paper, specifically calls on LEPs to use local natural capital sustainably to secure economic growth:

“LEPs have a key role in securing a green economy locally where economic activity should use natural capital sustainably; local economic growth should be increased by enhancing natural capital”

In documentation published for the LNP application process, Defra stated that the overall purpose of an LNP is to:

■ Drive positive change in the local natural environment, taking a strategic view of the challenges and opportunities involved and identifying ways to manage it as a system for the benefit of nature, people and the economy.

■ Contribute to achieving the Government’s national environmental objectives locally, including the identification of local ecological networks, alongside addressing local priorities.

■ Become local champions influencing decision-making relating to the natural environment and its value to social and economic outcomes, in particular, through working closely with local authorities, LEPs and Health and Wellbeing Boards.

The same report emphasises the expected value that LNPs have that will be of use to LEPs.

“LNPs could help LEPs to integrate the value of the services provided by the natural environment in their economic decision making, such as around sustainable tourism, climate change strategies and environmental risk reduction.”

There is a clear expectation that collaboration between LNPs and other partners such as LEPs will contribute to enhanced outcomes for all. The White Paper acknowledges that economy is critically dependent on the environment, and this relationship needs to be given sufficient recognition in economic planning.

47 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228842/8082.pdf


111

LEPs’ role is clearly defined

The Local Growth White Paper48 listed some of the roles for LEPs which included working with Government to set out key investment priorities, including transport infrastructure and supporting or coordinating project delivery:

■ Coordinating proposals or bidding directly for the Regional Growth Fund;

■ Supporting high growth businesses, for example through involvement in bringing together and supporting consortia to run new growth hubs;

■ Making representation on the development of national planning policy and ensuring business is involved in the development and consideration of strategic planning applications;

■ Lead changes in how businesses are regulated locally;

■ Strategic housing delivery, including pooling and aligning funding streams to support this;

■ Working with local employers, Jobcentre Plus and learning providers to help local workless people into jobs;

■ Coordinating approaches to leveraging funding from the private sector;

■ Exploring opportunities for developing financial and non-financial incentives on renewable energy projects and Green Deal; and

■ Becoming involved in delivery of other national priorities such as digital infrastructure.

The Local Growth White Paper does not describe how LEPs should engage with other organisations; it is up to LEPs to determine how best to deliver local growth. However, the importance of partnership with local organisations for the successful delivery of LEP plans is emphasised in the Government’s Guidance for Local Enterprise Partnerships on Growth Deals49:

“It will be important therefore for Local Enterprise Partnerships to consider their wider delivery capability so that they can effectively implement their strategy for growth. Local Enterprise Partnerships should mobilise local partners and fully exploit the support offered by Government“.

In addition, the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) guidance50 for LEPs references LNPs by name, stating that LEPs should consider engaging with them in the development and delivery of ESIF strategies.

LEPs role is evolving from planning to delivery

LEPs’ future is dependent on successful implementation of their strategic economic plans. The plans have been submitted (as of June 2014) and the remaining timeline of activities is as follows:

■ April 2014- June 2014: Feedback and revisions to Strategic Economic Plans, and European Structural and investment funds strategies.

■ June 2014: Government starts the formal assessment of Local Enterprise Partnership strategic plans with final assessments.

■ July 2014: Local Growth Fund offer made to Local Enterprise Partnerships, Growth Deal negotiations completed. Spending of European Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020 begins, subject to approval of the European Commission.

■ April 2015: Local Enterprise Partnerships and Government implement Growth Deals.

48 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-growth-realising-every-places-potential-hc-7961 49 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224776/13-1056-growth-deals-initial-guidance-for-local-enterprise-partnerships.pdf 50 HM Government, 2013. The Development and Delivery of European Structural and Investment Funds Strategies. Supplementary Guidance to Local Enterprise Partnerships. July 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224755/13-1049-development-and-delivery-european-and-investment-fund-strategies-guidance-for-leps.pdf


112

A6.6.2 Key findings from the research

Most LNPs in the thematic evaluation considered it of high priority to engage with LEPs so early activity has focused on this. Several examples were identified of LNPs informing the development of LEP economic strategies and plans, and of LEPs incorporating objectives related to the natural environment. However, the evaluation suggests that LNPs would like to have a much more significant impact on LEPs. During the interviews, some respondents expressed disappointment about the extent of engagement with LEPs and the difficulty of influencing LEP economic strategies. LNPs linked the difficulty of engaging with LEPs to several issues.

Main successes

Awareness‐raising

23 of 35 LNPs either agree or strongly agree that LNPs have increased awareness about the natural environment, which could be seen as disappointing given that this is the primary focus of LNPs. This is less common with LEPs than other organisations. LNPs have helped to raise general awareness among LEPs of the environmental assets that exist in local areas, and the potential economic benefits of enhancing and protecting them. Most of these are ‘active’ awareness raising activities which involves LNPs undertaking specific initiatives to disseminate information about the benefit and value of the natural environment.

Influence

The research findings indicate that engaging with LEPs is a (high) priority action for virtually all LNPs. As such, much initial activity has taken place in trying to engage with LEPs, and for most, some early examples of results and progress have been made with around 24 of 35 LNPs. Some LNPs have had good levels of engagement with LEPs, reflecting the policy timetable and the need to influence LEPs in the phase of their establishment and strategy development. In such cases, LNP engagement has led to the inclusion of objectives or plans related to the natural environment.

Early examples of cooperation

In addition to providing a forum for the exchange of ideas and information, a handful of LNPs also facilitate the delivery of collaborative projects / initiatives between LNP members and between the LNP and other (non-member) organisations. At present, there is only one example of this happening with an LEP.

Box 20 Examples of successful LNP and LEP cooperation

The examples below were provided by LNPs during the stakeholder consultation and the thematic evaluation.

Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes

LNP and LEP have undertaken joint workshops through Natural England. Local property / land developers also attended the workshops.

The LNP’s contribution helped to influence the preparation of the local growth strategy by emphasising the importance of natural capital to the local area.

Dorset The LNP and LEP are working towards a Joint Planning Charter that will set out their joint position on issues relevant to the natural environment and local economy, such as biodiversity offsetting.

Tees Valley The LNP enabled different organisations with different views to contribute to the development of the LEP strategy. The LNP provided suggestions to the LEP about how local environment priorities could be reflected in the LEP’s strategy, suggestions that the LEP took on board.

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

The LNP had the status and credibility to engage with the LEP and influence its economic strategy for the 2014 – 2020 period. The LNP’s contribution resulted in the inclusion of objectives and plans related to the natural environment.


113

Birmingham and Black Country

The LNP offered advice on the LEPs sustainable water and conservation plans, resulting in changes to the LEP’s economic strategy.

Gloucestershire The main achievement has been the engagement with the LEP. The LNP provided its inputs into the LEP’s EU funding strategy and economic plans. As a result, the LEP incorporated environmental sections in its economic plans.

Hull and East Yorkshire

The LNP engaged with the LEP about the importance of the natural environment, highlighting the potential to improve the quality of specific areas of green infrastructure and enhance the economic potential of the area. The result of the LNPs work with the LEP was the allocation of £1.7m of EU funding over the 2014 – 2020 period.

Wiltshire and Swindon

Following a difficult start, the LNP established a good working relationship at an operational level with the LEP. The key breakthrough was a meeting between the LNP and a consultant working on the LEP Strategy, which provided the opportunity for the LNP to articulate what the LNP could offer the LEP and what value the LNP could add to discussions. THE LNP was then invited to participate in a series of workshops for key stakeholders to help identify potential priorities for the ESIF Strategy then being developed. The LNP participated fully and, subject to final approval, has secured an element of the funds for natural capital investment projects.

There is an LEP representative on the LNP board however to date there is no LNP representative on the LEP board.

Lowland Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire

The LNP structure has helped to facilitate engagement between the LEP and LNP members, engagement which would have been unlikely to occur in the absence of the LNP. There is a senior LA planner, who is part of the LEP, working with the LNP on the development of its strategy. The LNP has a representative on a management steering group of the LEP, and also a representative on the LEP board.

The collaboration between the LEP and LNP has resulted in the preparation of detailed information about potential natural tourism business opportunities.

Main challenges

Lack of understanding leading to lack of credibility

30 of 25 LNPs reported that establishing links with LEPs posed significant or very significant challenges. Some LNP participants commented that LEPs appear to have little understanding of how the natural environment can contribute to economic growth and instead view the natural environment as a barrier to growth. LNP participants also suggested that LEPs have little incentive to engage with LNPs to improve their comprehension of the potential opportunities offered by the natural environment. LEPs are advised to engage with LNPs, but are not required to demonstrate how the views and opinions of LNPs have been incorporated into LEP economic strategies.

In areas with overlapping LNP/LEP boundaries, respondents stated that LEPs do not typically understand why there is more than one LNP in an area and why two LNPs in the same area might be addressing different priorities related to the natural environment. However several LNPs have found that working together with other LNPs increases their credibility with LEPs and puts the LNPs in a better position when attempting to influence LEP economic strategies.

Chairpersons and coordinators, and some members too, considered that the purpose of LNPs and their role is not adequately defined, and that LNP responsibilities are not well articulated.

Resources

Without the resources necessary to action or implement anything, respondents commented that LNPs are not taken seriously by LEPs and are often viewed as ‘talking shops’ of limited consequence. However the lack of backing for LNPs, and their limited profile, was considered to be more significant than the lack of resources – as demonstrated above. LNPs felt that an increase in resources would be


114

less effective at improving credibility compared to the potential benefits of enhanced backing from central government about what LNPs are for and why they matter. The lack of resources has, in some cases, prevented LNPs commissioning or identifying evidence necessary to justify a particular initiative.

One LNP discussed the difficulty of influencing LEP economic strategies without the resources to commission evidence necessary to link improvements to the natural environment with positive economic outcomes.

Suggestions to address challenges

Respondents saw a role for central government departments to encourage LEPs to work with LNPs. Suggestions included promoting the role and function of LNPs to LEPs, requiring (rather than encouraging) LEPs to work closely with LNPs, and providing the resources necessary to maintain a full-time dedicated coordinator.

■ The majority of chairpersons and coordinators suggested that more leadership from Defra (and other central government departments) would help to increase LNPs’ credibility with LEPs.

■ It was suggested that Defra should set out a vision to provide a clear role and purpose for LNPs to work towards. This would need to be developed in collaboration with LNPs.

■ Some respondents suggested that a national network of LNPs, similar to the national LEP network51, would help LNPs to work together and increase the visibility of LNPs among other organisations.

■ Using case studies where this work is progressing well would be helpful. Having brief case studies that can be quoted, in a language that is accessible and meaningful for LEPs, would be a useful resource. One useful resource would be a report from LNPs that have implemented the LEED toolkit, outlining their progress or results. This would enable others to demonstrate to LNP Boards the use of the process.

A6.6.3 How LNPs could work with LEPs

A point consistently raised during the thematic workshop was the need for individual LNPs to define what it is that they offer to LEPs. There needs to be a clear rationale for the LEP to engage with the LNP, and funding is only likely to follow if an LNP can provide something that will help the LEP meet its own objectives. This ‘offer’ may be helping to facilitate collaboration with LNP partners, or by providing information and evidence the LEP needs to inform decision making.

LNPs could influence economic plans and strategies by creating ‘hooks’ for environment and nature conservation and then suggesting ways forward as appropriate. For example, by defining high-level criteria for LEPs relating to environment-economy linkages, LNPs can add value within EU funding applications. There may be scope for LNPs to collaborate with EU Technical Assistance facilities and champion the integration of stakeholders within consortia.

One of main services that LNPs can offer LEPs is to offer an advisory and educational role. Workshop participants suggested that LNPs are in a good position to provide insights and data relating to emerging environment-economy links and establishing possible areas where the LEP could collaborate with other local interests. LNPs could draw on their membership to:

■ Act as a conduit to data related to local environment concerns and the mitigation of environmental risks relevant to local businesses, such as access to water resources or flood risk. Doing so would make environmental dialogue clear and efficient all round, and especially for LEPs, which might otherwise feel reluctant to engage with the wide range of environmental bodies they can be faced with.

■ Play an advisory role on biodiversity offsetting, explaining how it works and how to make it effective.

■ Advise on the links between policy areas such as tourism and social inclusion, and describe their relationship to environment-economy related issues.

51 Local Enterprise Partnership Network (2014) Accessed online 28.10.2014. http://www.lepnetwork.org.uk/


115

■ Highlight possibilities for innovative nature-based solutions to pressing local problems, such as flood management.

■ Provide a link to national strategies, particularly on issues of key relevance to the local economy such as the New Environmental Management Scheme (NELMS).

■ Workshop participants agreed that evidence about the links between nature, the economy and enterprise will have the most influence on LEPs (and other organisations). While full cases studies were considered to be useful to show the detail, even small snippets of information which make the environment-economy links more tangible were deemed worthwhile. Evidence that would be most useful for LNPs working with LEPs is likely to have the following characteristics:

– Locally relevant.

– Targeted to the appropriate stage.

– Uses the right level of detail.

– Uses hard and soft evidence, according to circumstance.

– Uses examples and stories to engage audiences.

– Uses visual material, including maps, for audiences to relate to.

Potential barriers preventing LNPs working with LEPs

The terminology and language used by LNPs and LEPs often differs quite dramatically (even within shared areas of interest). LNPs need to be careful in the language they use to engage with LEPs, and some effort and thought may be required to create a shared language and understanding between both partnerships. During the workshop three main points were made on language:

■ Avoid confusing other sectors, especially business interests, with environmental jargon (including ‘biodiversity’ as well as ‘geo-diversity, which is a fundamental controlling part of the environment but often neglected by decision-makers).

■ Recognise there will be language and jargon issues to navigate on both sides when having engaging with the business and economic development sectors.

■ Dialogue will lead to understanding. Once talking and interacting with business and economic interests, some of the language barriers will lessen and all parties may start to learn from each other as relationships develop.

Many LNPs suggested that it is difficult to overcome ingrained perceptions and ‘silo thinking’ within LEPs, such as the preference for ‘hard engineering’ approaches which disadvantages green infrastructure projects, and a common resistance to innovative or unproven approaches. The perceptions and preferences may be overcome through collaborative working between LNPs and LEPs. However the time and resource commitments necessary from both sides, including the time of participant organisations, to establish collaborative working could be significant. This time could be considered as a barrier, or potentially, an investment.

There may be a distinction between the geographical focus of LEPs and LNPs, with the former focusing on urban issues and the latter engaged in many rural projects, and that this may reflect different priorities. Cases where multiple LEPs or LNPs overlap creates further challenges for collaborative working, potentially increasing the workload associated with engaging with LEPs.

Opportunities for LNPs to influence LEPs

A range of opportunities were identified during the thematic workshop:

■ LNPs can build a powerful case for environment-economy linkages by providing convincing case studies of success, for example site visits to completed projects.

■ LEADER Rural Development action groups represent a clear convergence of the interests of LNPs and LEPs that could be developed.

■ Establishing personal contacts within LEPs on specific issues (for example, sector leads in tourism or SMEs) is a proven means to build collaboration over time. The interests of individuals are


116

important, and a change in personnel can quickly create new opportunities when previously there were barriers to engagement.

■ Understanding a LEP’s priorities – and finding a way to help the LEP to address the challenges – can be a key entry route for LNPs. If the LEP is preoccupied with a particular priority it may be a barrier to engagement, but LNPs may be able to offer to help the LEP with the particular priority.

■ LNPs could relate their work more explicitly to activities with a clear economic focus, such as green infrastructure and low carbon investment, as a means to gain the attention of LEPs

■ Better integration and communication of existing evidence- for example, through the development of accessible tools- can aid communication of environment-economy linkages.

■ As offsetting is a complex process, there is scope for mutual learning and exchange of best practices by LEPs and LNPs.

■ Even when LEPs have launched their key strategies and programmes of work, there are still opportunities for LNPs to shape the detailed work and priorities as these programmes get rolled out. The European Structural Investment Funds represent a key opportunity for collaborative working (for example, joint project delivery if the LNP and partner organisations have the capacity).

■ Water was highlighted as a key area of shared interest between LNPs and LEPs that could be developed, for example, with respect to Environment Agency integrated catchment management pilots. The pilots may provide the opportunity for LNPs to demonstrate their added value with respect to managing diverse data sets and coordinating environmental activities of LNP participants.

A6.6.4 Next steps

Regional-level networks, or potentially a national-level network of LNPs, could provide a powerful shared voice for environment-economy linkages and strengthen the case for LEP working. A prospectus could be drawn up at a national level which promoted the various advice and services on offer from LNPs, for different challenges facing business interests. (This recommendation was also made, on a wider level for the full span of LNPs’ work, during the discussion and reflections on LNPs’ mandate during another workshop, see the LNP Mandate discussion paper for details).

The regional or national LNP network could disseminate briefings and evidence to government departments and business leaders about ways for business to embrace nature. Engaging with national-level organisations could help to ease the way for LNPs to provide advice locally.

LEPs are not the only local groups related to environment-economy links. There are other potential partners, for example relating to green infrastructure, water resource management and soil management. These activities are directly linked to the core expertise of LNPs and LNP capacities in these areas should be emphasised. LEPs often focus on Small-to-Medium Enterprises, but there can also be benefits of direct engagement with big business.

LEP Programme Governance Groups may provide a further opportunity for LNPs to steer the work of LEPs. Joint approaches may help to share experiences among LNPs and make more effective cases for collaboration to LEPs.


The LEED Toolkit

Defra (through its agencies Environment Agency, Natural England, Forestry Commission and the Marine Management Organisation) has taken steps to encourage LEPs to work more closely with LNPs. In addition, Natural England has published a Local Environment and Economic Development (LEED) Toolkit to help LEPs and local authorities meet their economic growth targets through engagement with the environment.

Box 21 Local Environment and Economic Development (LEED) Toolkit

The LEED Toolkit has been piloted by the New Anglia LEP and Wild Anglia LNP, and a report detailing their


117

experience is available from Natural England (see ‘Useful Contacts’ section below).

The LEED Toolkit has been produced by the Defra network (the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Forestry Commission), working in partnership with several Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), Local Authorities (LAs) and Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs).

The toolkit has been produced to support LEPs because they have responsibility for strategic planning for sustainable economic growth.

The LEED Toolkit offers an “easy-to-use, technically robust, systematic and proportionate” way of making sense of environmental information in relation to economic planning by supporting LEPs to systematically consider the evidence relating to the local economy/environment relationship in order to reveal opportunities and threats and to consider appropriate responses to them.

The toolkit produces accessible, non-technical outputs that assist strategic economic decision making. The toolkit will support Local Enterprise Partnerships to make operational sense of complex environmental information, so that it can support vision development through feeding in to SWOT analysis.

It supports the examination of: economic planning through examining the socio-economic situation and setting goals; the physical economy through resource use, waste and emissions; relationship with the environment through provisioning, regulating and cultural services; and outputs through examining opportunities and threats, and strategic and tactical solutions.

Other local organisations such as LAs and LNPs can be involved in working through the toolkit via a consortium approach, thereby bringing a wider mix of perspectives.

It begins with a one day workshop to identify opportunities, threats and solutions, and can be extended to two further levels to consider these environmental relationships in detail.

Defra Network Offer to LEPs and City Deals

Defra and the Defra Network (Environment Agency, Natural England, Forestry Commission and the Marine Management Organisation) have reviewed how they can help to facilitate and support sustainable growth and respond to localism, and have published an ‘offer’ to LEPs and City Deals, including Enterprise Zones52.

Box 22 Defra Network Offer The offer sets out how the Defra Network will work with LEPs and City Deals to help them meet their objectives. The Defra Network has committed to

■ Provide advice on planning, permit and licence applications, and help business meet the requirements of environmental legislation.

■ Promote sustainable growth and increase certainty by working with businesses and communities to manage flood risk and coastal erosion and encourage the sustainable management of water and land.

■ Promote the value of Green Infrastructure to business, communities and the environment.

■ Build the visitor economy and strengthening supply chains.

■ Enable marine industries to grow by providing greater certainty for investors and developers.

■ Maximise skills and knowledge for businesses and the jobs market.

■ Share its evidence and knowledge to help LEPs and City Deals understand and manage the relationship between the economy and the environment, and bring a long term perspective to growth decisions.

52 Natural England (2014) Defra Network Offer. Accessed online 28.10.2014 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/defra-network-offer_tcm6-35836.pdf


118

A6.7 LNPs’ mandate

The paper includes a brief summary of the interim findings of the LNP evaluation, and sets out issues for consideration about defining mandates for individual LNPs and defining mandates for the LNP network. The paper is also informed by the proceedings of a workshop held in June 2014 attended by 10 LNP representatives, and a representative from Defra and Natural England.

A6.7.1 Policy context

Local Nature Partnerships aim to strengthen local action for the natural environment and now cover most of England

Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) are partnerships of a broad range of local organisations, businesses and people who aim to help bring about improvements in their local natural environment. Their establishment was announced by the Government in the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP)53, in order to strengthen local action on natural environment issues. The NEWP stated that LNPs will enable local leadership and may operate across administrative boundaries. They will raise awareness about the services and benefits of a healthy natural environment, and will be encouraged to form strong links with Local Enterprise Partnerships in order to strengthen the green economy.

As well as reflecting the localism agenda, the establishment of LNPs emphasises the importance of local action in connecting people with nature, recognising and strengthening the benefits that ecosystems provide to society, and bringing together the different actors and decision makers who influence on the natural environment and green economy. LNPs have a key role to play in guiding, influencing or contributing to many of the initiatives and ideas set out in the NEWP, such as biodiversity offsets, payments for ecosystem services, catchment based approaches, local public health initiatives and landscape-scale conservation projects.

The Government has encouraged local areas to establish LNPs voluntarily, where there is an interest in doing so. The NEWP envisaged that around 50 partnerships might form around England, and announced the provision of one-off funding of £1 million in 2011/12 to help to build their capacity. In addition, it was announced that an annual Ministerial event will be held, at which partnerships can come together to share best practice, discuss implementation issues and celebrate success.

There are now 48 LNPs, covering most of England. Defra hopes to build a close relationship between LNPs across the country, to encourage mutual learning and to help them collectively to set and deliver on national priorities.

By pursuing local priorities LNPs are expected to contribute to positive change for the natural environment across England

In April 2012, Defra published a paper54 further elaborating the role of LNPs. This stated that the overall purpose of an LNP is to:

■ Drive positive change in the local natural environment, taking a strategic view of the challenges and opportunities involved and identifying ways to manage it as a system for the benefit of nature, people and the economy;

■ Contribute to achieving the Government’s national environmental objectives locally, including the identification of local ecological networks, alongside addressing local priorities;

■ Become local champions influencing decision-making relating to the natural environment and its value to social and economic outcomes, in particular, through working closely with local authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and Health and Wellbeing Boards.

53 HM Government (2011) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.pdf 54 Defra (2012) An overview of the Local Nature Partnership role. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192580/local-nature-partnerships-overview120402.pdf


119

■ These broad purposes often prompt a number of subsequent discussions as to how LNPs can deliver on these responsibilities in practice. In order to fulfil this role, an effective LNP is likely to have:

■ A shared strategic vision and set of priorities;

■ A broad membership that includes economic, health and environmental interests;

■ Effective and accountable governance and leadership.

■ Influence and knowledge about the natural environment and its services

■ A good overview of the range of activities and partnerships concerned with the sustainable management of the natural environment in its area.

One LNP participant noted that these 5 criteria could provide a practical basis for monitoring the progress of each LNP, for example through a web portal that would allow the public to monitor their local LNP.

By officially recognising and supporting LNPs, the Government has sought to develop their credibility and influence at the local level, while giving them the flexibility to define and pursue local priorities. It is intended that LNPs will become self-sustaining strategic partnerships of a broad range of local organisations, businesses and people with the credibility to work with, and influence, other local strategic decision makers.

While emphasising the importance of local decision making, the Defra paper also suggests how LNPs may contribute to the policy agenda for the natural environment, as set out in the NEWP and other documents. It suggests that LNPs have a role to play in relation to three overall themes and a number of specific initiatives within them:

■ Sustainable land use and management: identifying and embedding ecological networks, informing the Government’s biodiversity strategy, sustainable land management, green infrastructure, maintaining countryside character, working with National Park Authorities and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, working with local initiatives on flooding and water management, protecting and improving public access to the countryside, and promoting biodiversity offsetting. Some participants felt that the specialist nature of this task is beyond the capacities of a voluntary group such as an LNP.

■ Green economic growth: working with Local Enterprise Partnerships on the natural environment/ economy interface, engaging local businesses in initiatives such as PES and offsets, and engaging with other partnerships such as RDPE LEADER groups on natural environment issues. Some participants suggested that this agenda has been disadvantaged by the Government’s insistence that the EU SIF process does not have to include environmental projects.

■ Quality of life and local health and wellbeing: through green infrastructure and public access, and by working with Local Health and Well-being Boards.

A6.7.2 Overview of LNP evaluation findings

Some LNPs are making good progress establishing partnerships, putting the necessary governance structures in place and identifying priorities. A frequently identified issue constraining the ability of LNPs to influence other organisations is the lack of a mandate for LNPs, perceived or otherwise. Of the LNPs represented within the discussion group, around half were struggling to get support and find time from volunteers.

Continued Defra support is considered as crucial to sustain LNPs

LNPs expect that their profile and role in the future will depend on continued support from Defra over the long term. Defra support is considered necessary to ensure that LNPs have the credibility and status required to influence other organisations.

Several LNP participants stated that although LNPs are established and are starting to gain traction locally, without Defra’s continued support it is unlikely that they would continue. Defra’s support is necessary to give LNPs the credibility necessary to attract senior level appointments to the board, and to be taken seriously by local authorities, LEPs and other organisations. If Defra were to withdraw its


120

support, for example if a change of government resulted in a change in Defra priorities, then the future of LNPs would be highly uncertain. Participants noted that the responsibility that the mandate implies for LNPs is potentially enormous if all associated tasks are to be performed well. An equivalent strategic responsibility is seen in Local Police and Crime Commissioner offices, which often have a budget in excess of £1m. Even 1 percent of this figure, it is argued, would allow LNPs to have significantly higher impact in their activities.

Wider support from across central government will help LNPs to influence other organisations

During the interviews, a significant number of chairpersons and coordinators highlighted the need for support for LNPs from across government. They stated that continued and increased support is vital to ensure that LNPs have the weight and status necessary to influence other organisations and have positive impacts on the natural environment. The support LEPs receive from central government was frequently cited as an example of what should be provided to LNPs. Several chairpersons and coordinators commented that central government should help to increase networking between LNPs. Doing so would, in their opinion, increase LNPs’ mandate by providing a means for LNPs to more clearly articulate what LNPs are for and why they matter.

It was suggested that some compulsion to key local players may be needed, such as Local Planning Authorities, Health Authorities, LEPs and the Defra family, so that they actively support, contribute to and consult their LNP. This could include a formula for dividing financial support from local key players including LPAs, which are facing significant cuts to government support for their services.

Guidance would help LNPs to work towards common objectives and define a core LNP ‘offer’

LNPs frequently cited a need for clear guidance from central government, pointing to the guidance available to LEPs as an example of what is required. LNPs stated that there was a good amount of central government guidance during the initial LNP establishment stages, but that there was no clear vision or strategy for LNPs to work towards. Clear guidance about LNPs’ role and purpose would help them to work together as a coherent network, and help LNPs to demonstrate to other organisations what they are for and why they matter. LNPs suggested that Defra could usefully set out the vision for LNPs, what they are expected to achieve and examples of the governance structures or modes of working that might be expected to contribute towards achieving this vision. The LNPs stated that the lack of a strategic vision undermined the credibility and security of LNPs as it was not clear exactly what LNPs should be doing. Several respondents suggested that clearer guidance from Defra would facilitate better engagement with LEPs as it would demonstrate that LNPs are credible partnerships that have the support and backing of central government.

A few LNP participants stated that Defra could help to strengthen the LNP initiative by working with LNPs to set out a strategy for LNPs that describes their role and objectives. Doing so would, in their opinion, enable LNPs to function as a coherent national initiative with a higher profile than they have now working in isolation.

How central government could help strengthen the credibility of LNPs

LNPs offered examples of how central government could help to strengthen the credibility of LNPs:

■ Providing LNPs with a clearer policy strategy that LNPs are an important government priority and LEPs and LAs should cooperate with them.

■ Raise awareness at a national level about LNPs and what their role is.

■ Designate LNPs as a statutory consultee for LAs and LEPs.

■ Ensure LEPs had a duty to cooperate with LNPs and demonstrate how LNP concerns are reflected in LEP plans and strategies.

■ Allocate LNPs something specific and concrete to do, that is, give them a specific purpose. For example a formal role in biodiversity offsetting, or sponsoring LIFE bids.

■ Obtain support from other government departments such as BIS and CLG.

■ National level representation for LNPs, such as national LNP network that could contribute to policy development and engage with other national networks, such as the LEP network.


121

■ Allocate funding for LNPs to maintain core support services, such as a coordinator and an active website.

■ LNPs should be able to make a contribution to priority setting in Natural England, the EA and Forestry Commission.

Increasing the LNPs’ credibility would, in the opinion of LNP participants, help LNPs to obtain funding from other sources and have a more significant influence on other organisations.

A6.7.3 Defining a mandate for LNPs

What does ‘mandate’ mean & how does it matter?

It is important to note the different practicalities of defining LNPs’ mandate, and that mandate is understood differently. The discussions during the thematic workshop revealed that LNP participants have different understandings of the concept of ‘mandate’, for example related to delivery, influence and funding, and whether LNPs have a mandate or not. These differences are important to understand. LNPs interpret mandate differently, and have a different understanding of whether LNPs have a mandate or not, and what the mandate means in practice.

Some consider that there is a mandate for LNPs to exist, provided by the Natural Environment White Paper and related Defra publications, but that there is no operational mandate for LNPs to be involved in local decision making and delivery. The absence of any requirement for other organisations to pay heed to LNPs undermines, in the opinion of some LNP participants, the ability of LNPs to effect change. Other LNP participants considered that there is sufficient mandate for LNPs, but it is the responsibility of LNPs to define what it is they are for and what they can offer to other organisations.

Three different levels of LNP mandate were identified:

■ The delivery of natural environment-related initiatives.

■ Local mandate to engage with local partners and achieve legitimacy.

■ National mandate (yet to be fully defined).

■ LNPs considered that having a clearly defined mandate can:

■ Provide a clarity of scope and help to define an LNP’s role. It is important to be clear about what the LNP is doing and not doing. Defining individual roles also helps to create synergies with partners, and to provide a ‘one voice’ approach whereby LNPs are working together to achieve similar aims and outcomes.

■ Enable LNPs to more effectively influence partners, for example, LEPs Health and Well-being Boards.

■ Help LNPs to develop a specific offer – e.g. a point of contact to direct queries related to the environment or a body that collects available data and ensures that it is quality controlled. This would also contribute towards translating national policy into local action.

■ Contribute to specific tasks such as data provision and collection and development of local toolkits. A well-defined role for LNPs provides clarity of purpose, facilitating better cooperation between LNP participants and more strategic coordination of LNP participants’ initiatives.

■ Help to mitigate the potential tension between LNP delivery and delivery by LNP participants / members. An LNP is best placed for strategic coordination rather than actual delivery, and there is a need to avoid duplication.

■ Shift from the negative framing of what LNPs cannot do, to a more positive approach that sets out what LNPs (together and separately) can do. This could help to have LNPs included in planning and strategizing, and get LNPs more involved in local coordination.

Box 23 Warwickshire Coventry and Solihull LNP Strategic Vision

Warwickshire Coventry and Solihull LNP has set a strategic vision that will be delivered through integrated action across civic participation, third and public sector partnerships. The LNP will seek new opportunities that deliver


122

economic, social, health and environmental benefits. It includes the following elements:

■ The natural and historic environment will be in a vibrant and healthy condition such that the economy, people and local communities derive significant benefits from the full range of goods and services that it provides and sustains.

■ Key decision-makers and influencers will engage in and champion the need to actively integrate enhancement of the natural environment with economic growth.

■ The loss of biodiversity in Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull will have been halted and reversed. Key habitats will have been restored, enhanced and connected at a landscape scale.

■ Local people will value and feel connected to their local environment.

■ The vision will be achieved through:

– Creating an evidence-based strategic framework at a landscape scale that contributes to enhanced biodiversity, water and air quality and sustainable living.

– Working in partnership with a range of sectors to create a healthy natural environment and improve the range of benefits and services we receive from it.

– Promoting actions and projects which enhance the quality of existing habitats and expand the area under sensitive environmental management.

– Engaging, inspiring and informing people in urban and rural communities to reconnect people with the natural environment through a range of programmes.

– Promoting the green economy and supporting sustainable development initiatives.

How can stronger national mandate help?

There are two sides to LNPs’ mandate – local and national. LNPs consider that they have a role to influence local delivery by Defra family organisations and other local organisations. At the national-level, LNPs have a role to influence national policy design.

Although there examples of local and regional cooperation, the interim findings of the evaluation suggest that LNPs’ collective impact is limited by a lack of cohesion and cooperation across the network. LNPs have suggested that a more concrete role, and responding to issues with a unified voice, may help to increase the credibility and effectiveness of the network.

Defining a more concrete role for LNPs depends on balancing Defra’s expectations with LNPs’ capabilities and interests. Defra’s objectives for LNPs are described in the Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP)55. The NEWP states that LNPs are expected to play a key role in delivering or contributing to many of the initiatives and ideas it sets out, such as biodiversity offsets, payments for ecosystem services, catchment based approaches, local public health initiatives and landscape-scale conservation projects. However defining what specifically LNPs can / should do across the NEWP’s initiatives and ideas depends on LNPs identifying what collectively the partnerships can offer. That is, for Defra and LNPs to work together to define a more concrete role for LNPs, it will be necessary for LNPs to first define what it is LNPs can reasonably be expected to provide in the context of their interests, capacities and capabilities.

The absence of funding from central government, and the localism agenda, suggests that LNPs need to work collectively to define what it is they are willing and able to commit to. However, at the same time there is for government to more clearly specify the mandate of LNPs.

Workshop participants suggested that it would be helpful for LNPs if Defra could confirm LNPs’ mandate as set out in the NEWP. Doing so could draw on the progress LNPs have made, and re-confirm the role of LNPs at the local and national level. There is a need for a refreshed message with specifics included to enhance credibility and offer examples to other LNPs and related organisations. Defining the refreshed message may require collaboration between Defra and LNPs.

Leadership and mandate

55 HM Government (2011) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.pdf


123

Workshop participants suggested that the lack of national representation of the network undermines LNPs’ potential. The network needs a strong voice that can interact with national policy discussions. This will help to embed LNPs in policy making and help to strengthen LNPs’ local mandate and interactions with local delivery agencies. Workshop participants consider that LNPs need a national spokesperson for involving LNPs in strategy and policy making at the national level.

The findings of the thematic evaluation also suggest that LNPs’ potential would be strengthened by improving national coordination across the network. LNPs suggested that by working together and presenting a more unified front LNPs would function more effectively as a network. Doing so would, in their opinion, strengthen LNPs mandate to work with national and local partners.

A strong national mandate would help to provide a single vision for the natural environment, and open doors with key policy makers at national level. Interacting with national policy makers is key to protecting and enhancing the natural environment, and for providing LNPs with the mandate to work with other (non-environment) organisations.

Topic-based mandate

Some LNPs felt that a greater national steer on a topic by topic basis would be useful and would help LNPs to deliver on expectations.

There was a view that the Defra mandate is currently very vague but it was acknowledged that there were pros and cons as a result. However greater recognition and status at a national level is thought to be useful and this may help to open more doors, particularly with the LEPs. It is also important that LNPs are consulted on new policy and initiatives right at the very beginning of the process and not just towards the end.

Local offer

LNPs mandate to influence local decision making is perceived by some LNP participants to be constrained by their lack of influence at national level. However other LNP participants consider that there is sufficient mandate to have local influence, but it is up to LNPs to create the opportunities to do so. At present, having a local influence depends on the individual interests and commitment of local stakeholders- arguably too haphazard an approach to deliver national environmental priorities. Having a local mandate is important as it defines how the national programme will work at the local level and it can also help in fund raising.

Different LNPs will have distinct strengths. LNPs could identify and promote the niche services they provide in their area. The local offer of LNPs includes:

■ One voice for the environment: There was general agreement at the workshop that the environment sector is diverse and not always well coordinated. It was suggested that a key role for LNPs could be to provide a strategic coordination function between local organisations working on issues related to the natural environment.

■ A conduit for advice: It was agreed that the ‘one voice’ role of LNPs could be more strongly promoted as other bodies may find it efficient to receive one clear message on the environment. LNPs represent a partnership of bodies and viewpoints, acting as a conduit LNPs could:

– Moderate diverse views to offer one voice on key issues.

– Provide efficient communication to partners such as local authorities, LEPs and health bodies, with one rather than multiple messages.

– Acts as an honest broker. LEPs, developers, public bodies and health bodies, may benefit from advice through the trusted relationship of an honest broker.

LNPs vary in terms of, for example, their membership, the expertise and experience available to them, the funding and resources secured, and the priorities they intend to address. An issue that is consistent across LNPs is the need to define an ‘offer’ or ‘service’ that they can provide. LNPs that can articulate what they are for, and what they can offer, are more likely to successfully engage with other organisations and partnerships.

The evidence collected as part of the LNP evaluation suggests that some LNPs are struggling to define exactly what it is they offer to other organisations. LNPs may be struggling to do so due to the difficulties associated with obtaining funding and the (perceived) reliance on funding to provide a focus


124

and well defined remit. It may also be due to the divergent nature of LNPs’ membership complicating the identification of the most appropriate offer.

Participants also cautioned that establishing a common voice for LNPs would require significant consultation and organisation which may be beyond the current capacities of many LNPs. LNPs were developed on basis of having a wider mix of partners involved in developing approach to environmental issues, to broaden the engagement and so widen the local understanding of environment and biodiversity needs- not to provide a co-ordinated voice for the environment sector.

Confidence /Success factors

The following factors were identified as affecting the strength of an LNP’s mandate:

■ Well defined LNP role: A clear role and strategy and a published document can help provide focus and influence. It can also help to provide credibility and helps others to better understand the LNP’s offer. Having a certain profile or a level of awareness is useful and can mean that LNPs are better able to achieve objectives.

■ Track record: Having a track record helps to develop trust in the offer – the track record of the different organisations involved in the LNP is also important.

■ LEPs: Developing a relationship with the LEP is important in building confidence and having a greater impact and reach.

■ High profile chair: Having a high profile chair that puts in sufficient time can be a big benefit. For example one of the LNP chairs comes from a private sector background and they were able to talk to businesses in their own language as well as undertake a significant amount of business networking, raising profile and awareness.

A6.7.4 Next steps

Defining a mandate and achieving influence is difficult and depends on several interconnected factors. With a well-defined and clearly articulated mandate LNPs have influence, with influence comes funding, and with funding LNPs can deliver (delivery includes providing a strategic coordination function. The capacity to deliver provides an LNP with the mandate to get involved on local and national issues (Figure A6.4). The reverse is also true, that is, with no mandate there is no influence, no funding no capacity to deliver and thus no mandate.

Workshop participants suggested that concentrating efforts on the ‘influencing’ element could potentially be the most effective approach. They suggested that having LNP national leads, one for each policy area, to engage with national decision-makers could help LNPs achieve the influence necessary. Related to this point was the need for a prospectus of LNP services / offers that could be used in national discussions.


125

Figure A6.4 Circle supporting LNPs’ potential and enhancing their mandate

Workshop participants suggested that LNPs should prepare a national prospectus setting out what the potential offer of local LNPs is. The prospectus would be informed by Defra’s expectations for LNPs, as defined in the refreshed message from Defra, and would have to emphasise that LNPs capabilities will vary locally. The prospectus could act as a ‘menu’ for an external audience, helping them to understand what LNPs are and what they have to offer.

Currently it is not clear how LNPs can get involved in national-level discussions. Workshop participants suggested that it would be useful to have national LNP leads for each policy area to engage with Defra and other central government departments and national bodies about LNPs and the role they could play. The national leads could represent LNPs at strategic discussions and champion LNPs to embed them at the policy development stage. This would help to strengthen LNPs’ mandate to get involved in local decision making and delivery.

Delivery (incl. coordination)

Funding

Mandate

Influence


126

Annex 7 Survey responses: chairpersons and coordinators

A7.1 Background information

Figure A7.1 Q6: Which of the following sectors do you primarily represent on the LNP? (Please select the most relevant)

N = 47 survey responses (23 chairpersons, 24 coordinators)

Figure A7.2 Q7: How involved are you in the LNP?

N = 47 survey responses (23 chairpersons, 24 coordinators)

2

5

7

3

1

2

1

1

1

8

5

7

1

1

1

1

16

12

4

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30



Other


National parks and AONBs






Unspecified sector


Number of respondents

Chair Coordinator Member

Very involved, 33

Somewhat involved, 2


127

A7.2 Establishment

Figure A7.3 Q8: Please indicate how far, in your view, the LNP has progressed on the following? (Please indicate progress for each item listed below)

N = 35 LNPs


Figure A7.4 Q9: Please indicate which of the following are currently present in the LNP you are involved in?

N = 35 LNPs


25

1917

9 86 5

3 2

10

7

14

9

14 17

15

6 7

3

4

6

10 8

11

1412

5

7

1 4

1

2

9

1

3

22

10

4

1 1 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Establishmentof governance

strutures

Coordinatorand or admin

support

Setting outoverall vision

Gathering data Identifyingplaces

Initialconsultation

Developingplan of work

Establishing acom strategy

Establishing anevaluation plan

No.

of L

NP

s

Completed Making good progress Started but still early Plans are in place No plans to do No response

34 3432

23

19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

A chair A steering group orboard

A coordinator /secretariat

A delivery group /delivery groups

A forum of widerinterested parties

Num

ber

of L

NP

s


128

A7.3 Coordination and partnership working

Figure A7.5 Q10: Please indicate how engaged the following are in the LNP

N = 35 LNPs


Figure A7.6 Q11: To what extent do you think that the right organisations are involved with the LNP?

N = 35 LNPs


32

31

20

17

13

9

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

5

2

2

11

4

10

11

10

16

14

11

1

16

15

14

2

1

2

2

4

7

9

14

7

8

15

8

10

12

13

8

2

4

2

4

4

2

6

4

3

18

2

2

3

2

1

1

2

1

28

1

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35



Local Government (upper tier)

National parks and AONB

Local Government (lower tier)






Other



Local planners

Developers

No. of LNPS

Very engaged Somewhat engaged Not very engaged Not engaged at all Option not selected

Very much so, 11

To some degree, 20

Not sure, 4

LNPs


129

Figure A7.7 Q12: If the LNP has developed a relationship with any of the following groups / partnerships, please indicate how well that relationship is working

N = 35 LNPs


A7.4 Achievements

10

8

6

4

2

2

2

7

13

14

9

6

20

5

4

4

8

9

6

3

2

11

8

8

12

13

5

1

2

2

5

2

32

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Nature Improvement Areas

Catchment Partnerships


Local Health and Wellbeing boards

Campaign for the Farmed Environment

Rural and Farming Networks


No. of LNPS

Very well Somewhat well Not very well Not at all well No relationship No option selected


130

A1.1.1 Q13: LNP priorities

Figure A7.8 Q13: The following are priorities which some LNPs might be working on. Please score all that apply.

N = 35 LNPs


6

5

5

5

5

5

4

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

19

10

8

6

12

1

6

4

8

2

4

12

7

2

5

10

5

9

1

6

12

7

10

11

2

9

7

5

11

8

9

5

4

8

9

11

12

3

7

13

11

4

1

5

10

14

14

13

12

13

9

17

14

13

12

18

3

2

3

15

8

1

7

3

1

2

14

6

1

5

2

2

1

1

1

25

3

1

2

4

1

2

3

2

2

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40










Work on pollinators





Informing the targeting/delivery of agri-environment schemes




Work with local providers/beneficiaries on payment for ecosystems services…

No. of LNPs

Achieving results Making some progress Started but still at an early stage

The intention is there, but work hasn’t started No intention to work on this priority Option not selected


131

Figure A7.9 Q14: Please state the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. The LNP has....

N = 35 LNPs


Figure A7.10 Q20: To what extent do you think the achievements noted in your previous answers would have been achieved in the absence of the LNP?

10

10

7

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

2

2

17

13

16

13

14

14

13

21

12

9

5

12

8

3

3

7

4

4

8

2

6

6

12

6

11

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

5

7

8

8

8

10

10

8

6

10

14

13

13

8

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Increased collaboration and coordination

Engaged a wider range of sectors in natural environmental actions

Increased awareness about the natural environment

Increased the amount and/or quality of data and evidence on thelocal natural environment.

Increased the integration of the natural environment into localdecision making

Led to a more joined up, strategic and better targeted approach tomanaging the natural environment

Led to a greater focus on local priorities.

Increased knowledge sharing

Increased the pool of local expertise and skills available on thenatural environment

Led to a larger scale and more coherent approach to managing thenatural environment.

Delivered initiatives related to the natural environment

Encouraged action in areas where local environmentalopportunities and needs are greatest

Led to better use of funds / resources for managing the naturalenvironment

No. of LNPs

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Do not know No option selected

Most would have been

achieved, 11%


achieved, 43%

Only a few would have

been achieved ,

26%


achieved, 11%

No option selected, 9%

LNPs


132

N = 35 LNPs


Figure A7.11 Q21: To what extent has involvement in the LNP had an impact on your own organisation?

N = 35 LNPs



Some impact, 15


No response,

5

LNPs


133

A7.5 Constraints and opportunities

Figure A7.12 Q22: Please select the challenges that are relevant to your LNP and tell us how significant the challenges have been

N = 35 LNPs


29

26

16

10

9

8

7

5

3

1

4

8

14

16

16

14

15

14

16

2

2

8

6

10

12

13

13

1

3

1

3

3

1

2

3

34

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35




Making a connection to Health and Wellbeing Boards or Public Healthsector

Getting the right people involved with the right skills and/or expertise

Engaging senior local government officers and/or elected members

Establishing connections with the farmers, land owners and/or landmanagers


Establishing effective work and collaboration between partners in the LNP

Other

No. of LNPs

LNPs



134

A7.6 Resources

Figure A7.13 Q24: What kind of support have you received from the following organisations / sectors (apart from the original capacity fund)?

N = 35 LNPs


19

16

13

4

4

2

1

1

1

1

0 5 10 15 20

Local government


Environmental NGOs



Education/Research


LEPs

Big Lottery Fund


No. of LNPs

Funding


135


N = 35 LNPs


32

31

31

25

21

20

20

20

12

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Local government


Environmental NGOs




Education/Research

Community groups

LEPs


No. of LNPs

Staff time


136


N = 35 LNPs


Figure A7.16 Q25: To what extent have the sources of funding received had an impact on the LNP’s priorities, work and / or type of achievements? The impact on the LNP’s priorities, work, and / or type of achievements has been…

N = 35 LNPs


7

7

4

3

3

3

2

2

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

LEPs

Community groups

Education/Research

Environmental NGOs



Local government



No. of LNPs

Other

Very significant, 16

Significant, 5

Not very significant, 7

Don’t know / not sure , 2

No option selected, 5

LNPs


137

Figure A7.17 Q26: What kind of support do you anticipate you will receive from the following organisations / sectors in the future?

N = 35 LNPs


16

14

13

8

8

5

5

4

4

3

2

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Life+


Big Lottery Fund




Community groups

LEPs

Education/Research

Environmental NGOs



No. of LNPs

Funding


138


N = 35 LNPs


19

17

17

15

15

15

14

11

10

7

6

4

2

0 5 10 15 20

LEPs


Local government

Life+




Environmental NGOs

Big Lottery Fund


Education/Research


Community groups

No. of LNPs

Staff time / expertise


139


N = 35 LNPs


Figure A7.20 Q27: To what extent is the funding obtained by the LNP...


29

29

29

28

27

26

26

24

20

4

3

2

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Environmental NGOs


Local government




Education/Research

Community groups

LEPs



Life+

Big Lottery Fund

No. of LNPs

Other

85

2

9 4

2

12 16

14

8 15

7

13 1217 15

12

22

2 2 27 6 8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45







LNP Member

LNPs LNP Members

Completely Somewhat Not very Not at all No option selected


140


The figure is based on LNP chairpersons and coordinators survey responses. A response was provided by chairpersons and / or coordinators for 35 LNPs

Table A7.1 Q28: Please provide an estimate of how much annual funding is required to...

Estimate to ensure the LNP is viable Estimate to ensure the work that is planned for the LNP is delivered

Maximum 300,000 3,000,000

Minimum 10,000 15,000

Mean 51,589 312,810

Mode 30,000 150,000

Median 39,200 100,000

N = 35 LNPs

Figure A7.21 Q29: Looking into the next year and beyond, how secure is the funding for the LNP?

N = 35 LNPs


Very secure, 1

Somewhat secure, 9

Not very secure, 15

Not at all secure, 10


141

Figure A7.22 Q30: Looking to the end of the 2014/15 financial year, is there a shortfall between the funding that is required to keep the LNP viable, and the amount of funding that has been secured? How big do you estimate this shortfall to be?

N = 35 LNPs


Figure A7.23 Q31: Looking to the end of the 2014/15 financial year, is there a shortfall between the funding that is required to carry out the planned work of the LNP, and the amount of funding that has been secured? How big do you estimate this shortfall to be?

4 4

27

1

14

10

2

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

No optionselected

Sufficientfunding

Shortfallin funding

by:

£5,000 -£10,000

£10,000 -£30,000

£30,000 -£50,000

More than£50,000

No optionselected

No.

of L

NP

s

7

3

25

4

6

8

21

3

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

No optionselected

Sufficientfunding

Shortfall infunding by:

£10k -£25k

£25k -£50k

£50k -£100k

£100k -£250k

£250k -£500k

More than£500k

No optionselected

No.

of L

NP

s


142

N = 35 LNPs


Table A7.2 Q32: Until what point in time is the funding for the LNP coordinator secured?

Point in time LNP coordinator is secured

Maximum 2016

Minimum 2013

Mode 2014

Median 2014

N = 35 LNPs

Figure A7.24 Q35: Please select from the thematic discussions below, those that you would be interested to participate in.

N = 35 LNPs


5

13

14

16

17

17

17

17

18

19

19

20

21

22

23

25

25

26

27

27

30

31

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

General issues – otherGeneral issues – partnership working within LNP

General issues – partnership working outside LNPGeneral issues – evidence base

General issues – coordination landscape scaleNatural Env – Catchment mgmt

Natural Env - PESPartner working – LAs

Partner working – land managersGeneral issues – evaluating progress

General issues – sharing best practiceNatural Env – GI

Natural Env – ecological networksPolicy agendas – land use

Natural Env – public accessGeneral issues – LT sustainability

Partner working – LHWBPolicy agendas – health

Natural Env – Bdiv offsetsPolicy agendas – green economy

General issues – funding Partner working – LEPs

No. of LNPs

LNPs


143

Annex 8 Online survey questions

Background information

1. LNP:

Bedfordshire Berkshire Birmingham and Black Country

Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes

Cheshire region Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Env. Partnership

Cumbria Devon Dorset

Gloucestershire Greater Cambridgeshire Greater Lincolnshire

Greater Manchester Hampshire and Isle of Wight

Herefordshire

Hertfordshire Hull and East Yorkshire Humber Nature Partnership

Kent Lancashire Environment Forum

Leicestershire

Liverpool City Region London Lowland Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire

Morecambe Bay North Yorkshire & York Northamptonshire

Northern Upland Chain Northumberland Lowlands and Coast

Oxfordshire

Peak District Plymouth Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin

Somerset South Pennines South Yorkshire

Staffordshire Surrey Sussex (E&W and Brighton & Hove)

Tees Valley Thames Gateway Three Rivers (Durham)

Warwickshire West of England Wild Anglia (Norfolk and Suffolk)

Wiltshire and Swindon (Link2Nature)

Worcestershire Yorkshire West

2. Your name:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


144

3. Contact details (email address / telephone number):

This information will only be used if we need to contact you in order to schedule a phone interview.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. What is your role in the LNP? (Please select all that apply)

Coordinator / secretariat

Chair

Steering group / board member

Involved in writing the bid for LNP status

Part of the wider partnership / membership group

Member of a working / delivery group of the LNP

Other (please give details)

If other, please describe:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Your organisation:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. Which of the following sectors do you primarily represent on the LNP? (Please select the most relevant)



Environmental organisations (e.g. Wildlife Trusts)


Health organisations (e.g. the Health and Wellbeing Board)


Local planners

Developers



145


Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs)

National parks and AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

Defra agencies / delivery bodies (e.g. Natural England, Environment Agency, Forestry Commission)




_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. How involved are you in the LNP?

Very involved (ongoing input to the LNP, shaping priorities and work to date)

Somewhat involved (have regularly contributed to the LNP’s work to date)

Not very involved (have occasionally contribute to LNP work)

Not involved at all (no contribution to LNP)

7.a Please add any comments about your involvement with LNPs that you think would be helpful.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Establishment

8. Progress across LNPs is constantly changing. To help us understand how things have changed since the Phase 1 of the evaluation (conducted between October 2012 and April 2013), please indicate how far, in your view, the LNP has progressed on the following? (Please indicate progress for each item listed below)

Completed or near completio

n

Making good

progress

Started but still at an early stage

Plans are in place but work has not started

No plans / no

intention to do so


146

Establishment of governance structures (board, working groups etc)

Coordinator and/or administrative support in place

Setting out an overall strategy and/or vision

Gathering data about local issues / environment

Identifying places that are priorities and/or offer the greatest opportunities

Initial consultation with the wider community

Developing a plan of work (with specific actions and targets)

Establishing a communication strategy

Developing a plan for funding or resources for activities

Establishing criteria for success and how these will be measured

Establishing an evaluation plan and resources to complete an evaluation

8.l Please add any comments about the LNPs progress you think would be helpful.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. Progress across LNPs is constantly changing. To help us understand how things have changed since the first phase of the evaluation, please indicate which of the following are currently present in the LNP you are involved in?

A coordinator / secretariat


147

A chair

A steering group or board (a group responsible for the identifying priorities and overseeing LNP activities)

A delivery group / delivery groups (a group responsible for the delivery of LNP priorities, often focusing on a particular agenda or theme)

A forum of wider interested parties

9.a Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Co‐ordination and partnership working

10. Please indicate how engaged the following are in the LNP:

Very engaged (ongoing

input to the LNP, shaping priorities and work to date)

Somewhat engaged (have

regularly engaged with

the LNP)

Not very engaged (have

occasionally engaged with

the LNP)

Not engaged at all (have not engaged with the LNP)



Environmental organisations (e.g. Wildlife Trusts)


Health organisations (e.g. the Health and Wellbeing Board)


Local planners

Developers



148


Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs)

National parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs)

Defra agencies / delivery bodies (e.g. Natural England, Environment Agency, Forestry Commission)




_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10.q Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

11. To what extent do you think that the right organisations are involved with the LNP?

Very much so ‐ the right organisations are involved

To some degree ‐ some of the right organisations are involved, although there is some room for improvement

Not really ‐ the right organisations are not really involved, there is considerable room for improvement

Not at all ‐ none of the right organisations are involved

Not sure

11.a Why or why not? What sectors / organisations should (or should not) be involved?


149

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

12. If the LNP has developed a relationship with any of the following groups / partnerships, please indicate how well that relationship is working:

Very well Somewhat well

Not very well

Not at all well

No relationshi

p

Catchment Partnerships

Nature Improvement Areas

Campaign for the Farmed Environment

Rural and Farming Networks


Local Health and Wellbeing boards


If other, please state:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

12.i Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful (e.g. why relationships may have been established with some organisations but not others, the nature of the relationships that have been established, what they are achieving, what impact they are having):

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


150

Achievements

13. The following are priorities which some LNPs might be working on. Please score all that apply.

Achieving results

Making some

progress

Started but still at an early stage

The intention is there, but work hasn’t started

No intention to work on this priority





Informing the targeting/delivery of agri‐environment schemes





Work with local providers/beneficiaries on payment for ecosystems services schemes




151




Work on pollinators





_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

13.u Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

14. Please state the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:

The LNP has....

Strongly agree

Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Do not know / not

applicable


152

…increased awareness about the natural environment (e.g. of benefits of the natural environment and its value, its importance to local planning / economic growth / public health and wellbeing).

…increased the amount and/or quality of data and evidence on the local natural environment.

…increased knowledge sharing(e.g. the sharing and use of evidence and information on the local environment).

...increased the pool of local expertise and skills available on the natural environment.

…increased the integration of the natural environment into local decision making (e.g. local plans related to economic growth, public health and wellbeing, planning processes).

...encouraged action in areas where local environmental opportunities and needs are greatest.

...delivered initiatives related to the natural environment (e.g. demonstrated new initiatives or approaches, improved existing initiatives).

...increased collaboration and coordination (e.g. between partners of the LNP, between the LNP and wider organisations, between local and national organisations).

...engaged a wider range of sectors in natural environmental actions.


153

...led to a larger scale and more coherent approach to managing the natural environment.

...led to a more joined up, strategic and better targeted approach to managing the natural environment.

...led to a greater focus on local priorities.

…led to better use of funds / resources for managing the natural environment (e.g. better alignment of resources, focus on multiple benefits, making the most of synergies between activities).

14.n Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15. Please provide an example of how the LNP is increasing, or has raised awareness of the value and benefit of the natural environment among partners and stakeholders.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

16. Please provide an example of how the LNP is enhancing, or has enhanced expertise and knowledge sharing about the local environment.


154

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

17. Please provide an example of how the LNP is influencing, or has influenced decisions of partners and stakeholders.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

18. Please provide an example of how the LNP is delivering, or has delivered initiatives or improved local actions related to the natural environment.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

19. Please provide an example of how the LNP is improving, or has improved collaboration and coordination.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


155

20. To what extent do you think the achievements noted in your previous answers would have been achieved in the absence of the LNP?

Most would have been achieved in the absence of the LNP

Some would have been achieved in the absence of the LNP

Only a few would have been achieved in the absence of the LNP

None would have been achieved in the absence of the LNP

20.a Why or why not? Which achievements in particular? Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

21. To what extent has involvement in the LNP had an impact on your own organisation?

Involvement in the LNP has:

...had a significant impact

...had some impact

...not had very much impact

...had no impact

21.a What has been the nature of this impact?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Constraints and opportunities

22. Please select the challenges that are relevant to your LNP and tell us how significant the challenges have been:

Very significant

Significant Not very significant

Not at all significant


156


Getting the right people involved with the right skills and/or expertise




Establishing effective work and collaboration between partners in the LNP

Engaging senior local government officers and/or elected members

Establishing connections with the farmers, land owners and/or land managers

Making a connection to Health and Wellbeing Boards or Public Health sector

Other (please give brief details)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

22.l Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

23. What would help the LNP overcome the challenges identified?


157

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Resources

24. What kind of support have you received from the following organisations / sectors (apart from the original capacity fund)?

Multiple choices can be selected.

Funding Staff time / expertise

Other None

Local government


Environmental NGOs


LEPs


Education/Research

Community groups



Big Lottery Fund

Life+



_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


158

24.o Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

25. To what extent have the sources of funding received had an impact on the LNP’s priorities, work and / or type of achievements?

The impact on the LNP’s priorities, work, and / or type of achievements has been…

...Very significant

...Significant

...Not very significant

Don’t know / not sure

25.a Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

26. What kind of support do you anticipate you will receive from the following organisations / sectors in the future?

Funding Staff time / expertise

Other None

Local Government

Defra delivery bodies

Environmental NGOs


LEPs



159

Education/research

Community groups



Big Lottery Fund

Life+

Other (inc. other European or government funds)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

26.o Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

27. To what extent is the funding obtained by the LNP...

Completely Somewhat Not very Not at all

...Adequate for its needs?

...Suitable for the priorities it is addressing?

...Sustainable over time?

27.d Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


160

28. Please provide an estimate of how much annual funding is required to...

...Ensure the LNP is viable? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

...Deliver the work that is planned for the LNP?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

29. Looking into the next year and beyond, how secure is the funding for the LNP?

Very secure (e.g., beyond 2014)

Somewhat secure

Not very secure

Not at all secure (e.g. to the end of 2013 only)

29.a What impact do you think this will have on the LNP?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

29.b Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful (e.g. to what point in time funding has been secured for)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

30. Looking to the end of the 2014/15 financial year, is there a shortfall between the funding that is required to keep the LNP viable, and the amount of funding that has been secured?

Yes there is a shortfall

No ‐ sufficient funding has been secured

30.a How big do you estimate this shortfall to be?

Up to £5,000

£5,000 ‐ £10,000


161

£10,000 ‐ £30,000

£30,000 ‐ £50,000

More than £50,000

31. Looking to the end of the 2014/15 financial year, is there a shortfall between the funding that is required to carry out the planned work of the LNP, and the amount of funding that has been secured?

Yes there is a shortfall

No ‐ sufficient funding has been secured

31.a How big do you estimate this shortfall to be?

Under £10,000

£10,000 ‐ £25,000

£25,000 ‐ £50,000

£50,000 ‐ £100,000

£100,000 ‐ £250,000

£250,000 ‐ £500,000

More than £500,000

32. Until what point in time is the funding for the LNP coordinator secured?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

33. Please describe any support or resources that would help LNPs access different funding sources (e.g. sharing examples of how funding has been successfully secured)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Confidentiality


162

34. Please indicate below whether you would like to keep your responses confidential and for us to ensure that no information you’ve provided is attributable to your organisation or the LNP:

I want my responses to be kept confidential

I am happy for responses not to be kept confidential (e.g. to be used as attributable examples of good practice, lessons learned, etc.)

34.a Please add any comments you feel necessary:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thematic learning

In a later stage of the research, we will work with LNPs to facilitate additional in‐depth learning and evaluation on particular themes that are of most interest. This thematic learning will aim to help the LNPs to explore issues of shared interest and to help them to monitor and evidence their progress and impact. The list below suggests some possible themes, and we would welcome suggestions about others that may be of interest.

35. Please select from the thematic discussions below, those that you would be interested to participate in.

Working on particular natural environment agendas/ themes:

Payments for ecosystem services

Catchment management

Ecological networks, including local NIAs

Biodiversity offsetting

Green infrastructure

Public access to the countryside, nature and green space

36.a Influencing wider policy agendas:

Sustainable land use, including the planning system

Health and well‐being

Working with LEPs, businesses or local authorities on the green economy

36.b Working with particular partner organisations/ groups:


163

LEPs

Health and Well‐being Boards

Farmers and land managers

Local Authorities

36.c General issues and challenges:

Funding

Long term sustainability (including sustaining membership)

Partnership working ‐ within the LNP

Partnership working ‐ outside of the LNP

Coordination between landscape scale and other similar initiatives

Developing and using evidence

Evaluating progress and evidencing impact

Processes and methods for learning and sharing best practice across LNPs

Other ideas ‐ please specify


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

36.e Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

37. Why have you not been involved in the work of the LNP?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


164

38. To what extent do you intend to be involved in the LNP in the future?

Very involved (ongoing input to the LNP)

Somewhat involved (regular contribution to the LNP’s work)

Not very involved (occasional contribution to LNP work)

Not involved at all (no contribution to LNP)

39.a Why or why not? Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

40. How would you rate the work of the LNP to date?

The LNP has made considerable progress and is achieving results

The LNP is making some progress on some aspects, but no or little results yet

Work has started but it is still at an early stage

Plans are in place but work hasn’t really started

Don't know

41.a Please add any comments or detail you feel would be helpful:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

local nature partnership evaluation phase iirandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=12505_l... ·...

Documents